Ju.- 


\    '  f 


.    Kr 


a 


/" 


THE   APOSTLE   PAUL. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/apostlepaulsketcOOsabaiala 


THE  APOSTLE   PAUL 

^  Skettb  of  tbe  Bcbtlopmcnt  of  bis  ^otirine. 


BY 


A.    SABATIER, 

Profess(tr  in  the  Faculty  of  Frotestant  Theology  in  Paris. 


TRANSLATED   FROM   THE    FRENCH. 


EDITED,  WITH   AN   ADDITIONAL   ESSAY   ON   THE   PASTORAL   EPISTLES,  BY 

GEORGE    G.    FINDLAY,    B.A., 

Author  of  "  Galatians"  in  "  The  Expositor s  Bible.' 


JAMES    POTT    &    CO., 

14  &  16,  ASTOR   PLACE. 

1891. 


STACK 
ANNEX 

/29J 


AUTHOR'S    PREFACE    TO    THE 
ENGLISH    EDITION. 

''P^RAXSLATIOX  into  another  tongue  is  for  any 
-*-  book  an  honourable  and  a  perilous  experience. 
The  author  of  Lapdtre  Paul  is  fully  conscious  both 
of  the  honour  and  the  peril.  The  success  of  a  work 
which  is  in  any  degree  original  depends  not  only 
upon  its  intrinsic  merit,  but  also,  to  a  great  extent, 
upon  a  certain  instinctive  harmony  already  established 
between  the  mind  of  the  author  and  the  requirements 
of  the  public  to  which  he  addresses  himself  No 
plant  is  rooted  in  its  native  soil  by  finer  and  more 
numerous  fibres  than  is  a  literary  work  in  the 
country  and  society  in  which  it  was  produced.  It 
is  with  some  anxiety  that  I  inquire  whether  Vapotre 
Paul,  under  the  new  circumstances  in  which  it  is 
about  to  appear,  will  again  meet  with  the  inner  cor- 
respondence and  the  moral  and  spiritual  sympathy 
necessary  to  make  it  intelligible  and  to  justify  its 
publication. 

There  are  two  things,  however,  which  re-assure 
me.  The  first  is  the  distinguished  patronage  under 
which  my  work  is  presented  to  English  readers,  the 

b 


vi  PREFACE. 

care,  learning  and  judgment  of  those  who  are  re- 
sponsible for  the  translation  of  my  work.  My 
further  ground  of  confidence  is  derived  from  the 
hero  of  the  book  himself  and  the  universal  interest 
which  he  inspires.  Where  should  he  be  studied,  loved 
and  venerated,  if  not  in  England  ?  Are  not  English 
Christians,  in  a  very  special  sense,  his  spiritual  chil- 
dren ?  Do  they  not  owe  to  him  the  character  of  their 
religion,  the  form  of  their  doctrine,  even  their  principles 
of  religious  liberty  and  civil  right  ?  Is  not  Anglo- 
Saxon  society  his  work  ?  Does  not  his  spirit  pervade 
the  thousand  ramifications  of  English  civilization, 
extending  from  individual  conduct  to  the  highest 
scientific  activity,  from  domestic  life  to  the  political 
debates  of  Parliament  ?  Who  is  there,  we  may  ask, 
not  among  theologians  only,  but  amongst  all  earnest 
and  cultured  men,  who  is  not  interested  in  every 
attempt  made  to  understand  the  apostle  better,  and 
to  explore  the  inner  workings  of  his  mind  ? 

Paul  as  a  missionary  and  shepherd  of  souls  is  great 
indeed.  There  is  nothing  in  all  antiquity  to  compare 
with  the  record  of  his  travels  and  his  triumphs. 
Feeble  in  body,  living  by  his  toil  like  a  working- 
man,  this  weaver  of  Tarsus  enters  the  vast  world  of 
Paganism,  another  Alexander,  to  conquer  the  faith 
and  the  reason  of  mankind.  Merely  to  form  such  a 
resolution  was  heroic.  Darkness  covered  the  earth  ; 
the  peoples,  to  use  the  language  of  the  prophet,  were 
sitting  in  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death.  Paul 
entered,  alone  at  first,  into  these  depths  of  darkness, 


PREFACE.  vii 

with  the  Gospel  torch  in  his  hand  ;  and  wherever  he 
went  he  left  in  his  track  from  Damascus  to  Rome  a 
succession  of  young  expanding  Churches,  the  radiant 
centres  of  a  new  life,  the  fruitful  germs  of  modern 
society  forming  already  in  the  midst  of  the  old  world. 
In  all  this,  I  repeat,  there  is  something  truly  heroic. 

There  is  something  greater  still  in  the  mind  that 
inspired  this  mighty  work,  and  of  which,  in  truth,  the 
work  itself  is  only  the  exhibition  and  luminous  tran- 
scription in  the  visible  order  of  things.  Not  only 
did  Paul  conquer  the  pagan  world  for  Jesus  Christ ; 
he  accomplished  a  task  no  less  necessary,  and  per- 
haps even  more  difficult,  in  emancipating  at  the 
same  time  infant  Christianity  from  Judaism,  under 
whose  guardianship  it  was  in  danger  of  being  stifled. 
Besides  removing  the  centre  of  gravity  of  the  new 
Church,  by  the  advance  of  his  mission,  from  Jerusalem 
to  Antioch,  from  Antioch  to  Ephesus,  and  from 
Ephesus  to  Rome,  he  also  succeeded  in  disengaging 
from  the  swaddling  bands  of  Judaism  the  spiritual 
and  moral  principles  which  constitute  Christianity  a 
progressive  and  universal  religion. 

Not  that  Paul  can  in  any  sense  claim  to  be  the*"] 
founder  of  Christianity,  or  be  compared  to  Jesus.  / 
The  apostle  gloried,  and  rightly,  in  being  the  ser\'ant,  \ 
and  not  the  master.     It  is  as  a  .servant  that  he  is  s^ 

great.  Xh^^!^-^^gj-Jl"i]lilllI-— -^jj^-^  '"  Paul's  genius. 
The  first  impulse  came  from  Jesus.  Jesus  it  is  who 
in  our  religious  life  has  substituted  filial  relationship 
with  the  Father  by  means  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  thq 


via  PREFACE. 

legal  relationship  based  upon  the  Mosaic  law  and 
tradition.  Jesus  established  the  new  covenant ;  and 
in  doing  this  planted  His  cross,  if  we  may  so  say, 
between  ancient  Judaism  and  the  Gospel,  in  a  way 
that  rendered  void  all  attempts  at  reconciliation.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  certain  that  His  first 
r  disciples  at  Jerusalem  endeavoured  to  repair  this 
/  breach.  They  wished  to  keep  the  new  wine  in  the  old 
bottles.  Next  toStephen^thc_first_martyr,  it  was 
Paul  who  brokejthe_Iudaistic  spell.  To  his  think- 
ing, the  Christian  principle  only  took  the  place  of  the 
Jewish  principle  by  destroying  it.  His  conversion 
was,  in  effect,  the  negation  of  the  power  of  the  law 
as  a  means  of  salvation  ;  and  his  theology,  centring 

/  entirely  in  the  antithesis  of  faith  ^nd^  works,  law 
and  grace,  the  old  things  and  the  new,  the  time 
of  bondage  and  the  time  of  freedom,  was  but  the 

i^  expression  in  argument  and  theory  of  the  moral  and 
religious  experiences  which  began  in  his  conversion. 
Thus  the  external  revolution  had  its  spring  in  a 
psychological  regeneration  ;  and  it  is  important  to 
grasp  firmly  this  primary  fact,  if  we  would  not  mis- 
take the  meaning  of  the  whole  drama. 

In  reading  the  epistles  of  the  great  apostle,  nothing 
strikes  the  attentive  observer  more  than  this  psycho- 
logical connexion  between  his  doctrinal  creed  and 
his  inward  life.  The  first  is  the  beautiful  fruitage  of 
the  second.  Of  no  other  doctrine  can  it  be  so  truly 
said,  that  it  was  lived  before  it  was  taught.  It  may 
even  be  affirmed   that  oui    minds  do   not  properly 


PREFACE.  ix 

apprehend  it,  unless  we  have  undergone  for  ourselves, 
in  some  measure,  the  inward  experience  it  implies. 
An  eminent  professor  of  history  of  the  Sorbonne  at 
Paris  related  one  day  that  he  had  remained  for  years 
without  in  the  least  understanding  Paul's  theology, 
and  that  its  meaning  was  made  clear  to  him  by  a 
Christian  shoemaker  at  Lyons.  The  moral  crisis  of 
conversion  is,  indeed,  the  first  and  best  initiation  into 
the  truths  of  Paulinism. ' 

But  if  the  doctrine  of  the  apostle  Paul  is  always 
the  outgrowth  of  his  experience,  it  is  easy  to  infer 
that  it  must  have  had  a  history, — that,  in  other  words, 
it  was  developed  in  the  order  of  these  experiences. 
It  is  equally  plain  that  from  this  historical  standpoint 
alone  shall  we  be  able  to  understand  it  fully,  and  to 
account  for  the  various  forms  it  has  assumed  at  dif- 
ferent times  and  under  varying  circumstances.  To 
regard  it  in  any  other  way  would  be  inevitably  to 
pervert  its  character,  by  making  it  a  system  of  ab- 
stract philosophy,  and  by  separating  it  from  the  parent 
stem  whence  it  still  derives  its  life  and  truth.  This 
has  been  done,  it  seems  to  me,  alike  by  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  past  and  by  the^rationalistic  criticism  of  the 
Tubingen  School.  They  both  deny  the  existence  of 
progress  and  development  in  Paul's  doctrine  ;  they 
sever  the  delicate  nerves,  of  which  we  have  spoken, 
that  connected  his  spiritual  thought  and  his  spiri- 
tual life. 

The  former  theory  assumes  that  he  received  his 
doctrinal  system  from  heaven  complete  in  its  dialec- 


X  PREFACE. 

tical  organization  and  its  exegetical  demonstrations 
— a  thing  absolutely  inconceivable,  since  reasoning 
always  implies  effort  on  the  part  of  the  productive 
intelligence.  The  second  school  treats  Paul  as  though, 
after  his  conversion,  he  had  lived  in  solitude  like  a 
philosopher,  creating  by  means  of  speculation  and 
logic  the  entire  doctrinal  system  that  he  was  after- 
wards to  preach,  to  expound,  and  defend  before  the 
world.  In  both  instances  there  is  the  assumption 
that  his  mental  and  doctrinal  development  was  com- 
plete from  the  outset,  and  was  neither  disturbed  nor 
stimulated  by  new  conflicts  as  they  arose, — by  the 
arguments  of  opponents,  and  by  the  experiences  of 
his  busy  and  exciting  life. 

This  is  humanly  impossible  ;  and  it  is  historically 
untrue.  It  must  be  clearly  understood  that  Paul  was 
no  philosopher  of  the  schools.  The  purpose  or  wish 
to  construct  a  system^  properly  so  called,  was  wholly 
foreign  to  his  mind.  He  was  a  missionary,  who 
brought  everything  to  bear  upon  his  work.  He  learned 
by  teaching.  In  every  crisis  of  his  life  he  looked 
for  guidance  from  God.  The  solution  of  difficult 
questions  he  sought  in  prayer  ;  and  the  answer 
came  sometimes  like  a  flash  of  light,  sometimes  as 
the  result  of  profound  meditation,  but  was  always 
regarded  by  him  as  a  Divinejnspiration.  He  studied 
events  ;  he  reflected  upon  past  experiences  ;  he  pro- 
fited by  his  travels  and  his  reading.  Everything,  in 
.short,  furnished  him  with  food  for  thought,  and  with 
opportunities  for  discovering  the   practical  or  theo- 


PREFACE.  xi 

retical  issues  of  the  faith  that  he  incessantly  preached. 
Thus  his  thinking  ahvays  kept  pace  with  ids  outward 
activities  ;  and  till  the  end  there  was  a  constant  re- 
action of  the  one  upon  the  other.  Indisputable  proofs 
of  this  will  be  found,  we  believe,  in  the  present  work. 

It  is  on  this  account  that  we  have  combined  the 
exposition  of  Paul's  doctrine  with  the  history  of  his 
life.  The  exegesis  of  the  apostle's  writings  must 
always  start  from  the  latter,  and  be  guided  by  it. 
The  only  means  of  understanding  them,  whether  as 
a  whole  or  in  detail,  is  to  explain  them  by  the 
historical  circumstances  under  which  they  originated. 
Thus  restored  to  their  place  in  history,  they  are  no 
longer  treatises  in  abstract  theology ;  they  are  in 
reality  acts  of  Paul's  apostolic  life,  weapons  of  warfare 
or  means  of  instruction,  and  living  manifestations^ 
from  time  to  time  of  the  apostle's  heart  and  will, 
as  well  as  of  his  genius.  So  they  acquire  for  us, 
together  with  a  singular  dramatic  interest,  a  truth  and 
life  which  are  absolutely  new. 

The  historical  standpoint  has  another  advantage, 
and  renders  us  a  further  and  equally  important 
service.  It  enables  us  to  solve  without  prejudice 
or  violence  the  important  problem  which  modern 
criticism  has  raised  with  regard  to  the  authenticity 
of  Paul's  epistles.  The  critics,  as  is  well  known,  often 
argue,  from  the  literary  or  dogmatic  differences  they 
have  established  amongst  them,  the  impossibility  of 
their  being  the  work  of  one  and  the  same  author. 
They  take    their   stand   upon   the   group  known    as 


xii  PREFACE. 

that  of  the  great  epistles — Galatians,  Corinthians,  and 
Romans  ;  and  peremptorily  set  aside  all  those  which 
arc  not  exactly  of  the  same  type.  As  if  amid 
changing  circumstances  Paul's  manner  of  writing 
were  not  bound  to  undergo  like  changes  !  As  if,  to 
begin  with,  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  were  not  very 
different  from  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  !  It  has 
been  forgotten  that  these  four  letters  all  belong  to  a 
period  of  scarcely  three  years'  duration,  from  55  to 
58  A.D.  at  latest,  and  that  the  apostle's  career  lasted 
for  nearly  thirty  years.  What  a  long  space  of  time 
elapsed,  both  before  and  after  those  momentous  years 
spent  at  Ephesus  and  Corinth !  How  can  we  infer 
with  any  certainty  from  the  four  letters  of  Paul  then 
written  what  the  nature  may  have  been  of  those  he 
wrote  at  other  periods,  relating  to  other  questions? 
Who  would  maintain  that  the  apostle,  when  travelling 
along  with  Silvanus  and  founding  the  Macedonian  or 
Corinthian  Churches,  wrote  in  the  same  strain  to  these 
young  communities  as  subsequently  to  the  Christians 
of  Galatia,  at  the  most  exciting  stage  of  his  contro- 
versy with  his  Judaizing  opponents  ?  Furthermore, 
is  it  probable  that,  after  three  or  four  years'  imprison- 
ment, he  would  indite  a  letter  to  his  beloved  Philip- 
pians  precisely  like  those  he  had  formerly  written 
from  Ephesus  to  Corinth,  or  from  Corinth  to  Rome  ? 
The  historical  doubts  accumulated  by  the  criticism 
of  Ferdinand  C.  Baur  and  his  disciples  find  their 
natural  answer  in  the  supposition  of  historical  develop- 
ment in  the  Pauline  .system.     This  assumption  docs 


PREFACE.  xiii 

not  ignore,  on  the  contrary  it  explains,  the  differences 
which  have  been  pointed  out  between  the  various 
epistles  ;  nor  is  it  in  the  least  obliged  to  strain  the 
historical  exegesis  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an 
artificial  unity  and  resemblance.  By  ^accepting  the 
Jdea_of  progress,  it  makes  room  for  the  variations  of 
thought  and  expression  w^hich  exist.  We  perceive, 
for  instance,  that  in  the  epistles  to  the  Colossians, 
Ephesians,  and  Philippians,  the  apostle  in  his  moral 
teaching  has  happily  attained  larger  views  of  social 
and  family  duties  We  observe  in  the  same  way  that 
from  the  time  of  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians, 
while  still  anticipating  the  glorious  and  speedy 
coming  of  Christ,  Paul  no  longer  hopes  to  see  it  in  ^ 
his  lifetime  ;  already,  we  find,  the  foreboding  of 
martyrdom  shadows  his  spirit,  and  has  rendered  the 
visible  triumph  and  glory  of  Christ  a  prospect  more 
remote.  There  is  the  same  development  in  his 
Christology.  But  none  of  these  distinctions  really 
affect  the  authenticity  of  the  letters,  so  soon  as  we 
discover  the  chain  which  links  them  together,  and 
can  trace  in  them  a  natural  and  normal  development, 
continuous  from  point  to  point. 

This  is  the  definite  task  that  the  author  of  this 
volume  has  endeavoured  to  accomplish.  How  far  he 
has  succeeded  in  reducing  to  a  progressive  series  the 
elements  previously  set  in  contrast  as  mutually  ex- 
clusive, and  in  supplying  their  natural  explanation, 
it  is  not  for  him,  but  for  his  readers  impartially  to 
decide.     In  writing  this  book,  he  has  striven  to  open 


xiv  PREFACE. 

out  a  path  hitherto  untrodden  in  Pauline  studies. 
Others  may  travel  farther  along  it,  and  with  surer 
foot ;  in  this  he  will  be  the  first  to  rejoice.  In  theo- 
logical science  as  in  practical  life  he  sees  servants 
only,  working  not  for  themselves  but  for  truth  and 
for  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  in  offering  his  work 
to  those  who  may  read,  or  even  criticize  it,  he  feels 
that  he  cannot  say  to  them  anything  better  than  that 
which  Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians  respecting  their 
preachers  :  iravra  vficov  icniv,  etre  nav\o<i,  eiVe 
jiiroWo)^,  etre  KT]<f)d<i,  eire  Koafio^;,  etVe  ^cotj,  eire 
6di'aTo<;,  etVe  evearcoTa,  eiTe  fxiWovra'  Trcivra  vfioiv, 
vfi€l<i  Se  XpiaTov,  Xp£(7T09  be  &eov  (i  Cor.  iii.  22,  23). 

AUGUSTE   SABATIER. 


PREFACE. 


*:jr*  Besides  the  Appendix,  the  English  editor  has 
thought  fit  to  insert  brief  foot-notes,  inclosed  in 
square  brackets  [thus],  on  some  points  of  controversy. 
M.  Sabaticr  commands,  in  the  greater  part  of  his 
exposition,  an  assent  so  warm  and  admiring,  that  it 
is  with  reluctance  one  records,  here  and  there,  a 
dissent  equally  decided.  He  has  applied  the  scientific 
method  of  modern  historical  inquiry  to  the  life  and 
work  of  the  apostle  Paul  with  great  skill  and  penetra- 
tion, and  with  a  singular  charm  of  treatment,  of  which 
the  reader  will  be  sensible,  even  through  the  medium, 
necessarily  imperfect,  of  translation.  Possibly,  through 
the  bias  natural  to  a  scholar  so  versed  in  historical 
and  psychological  criticism,  he  has  leaned  too  heavily 
against  the  older  "  ecclesiastical  theology." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  bespeak  for  this  gifted  repre- 
sentative of  French  Protestant  scholarship  a  friendly 
reception  upon  English  soil.  We  rejoice  to  claim 
M.  Sabatier,  in  the  words  he  so  aptly  quotes  from 
the  apostle,  amongst  the  all  things  that  are  ours. 

G.  G.  F. 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS.       • 

J>AGB 

Preface v-xvi 

Introduction i 


/^  o,^,.^*---^*-— k---"-'^  UJ.^JLt  Jc^         -L- 1 


BOOK   I. 

The  Sources  of  Paul's  System  of  Thought    .       23-94 
I.     The   First   Christian  Community  at  Jerusalem. — 

Christianity  and  Judaism 25 

II.     Stephen  the  Precursor  of  Paul. — Collision  between 

the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Principle       .        .     39 
III.     Paul's   Conversion.  —  Triumph   of   the   Christian 

over  the  Jewish  Principle 47 

I  v.    The  Genesis  of  Paul's  Gospel .        ...  71 


BOOK   II. 

First  Period,  or  Period  of  Missionary  Activity   95-134 
I.     The  Missionary  Discourses  in  the  Acts. — The  two 

Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians     .        .         .        .98 

^  H.     Primitive  Paulinism 112 

III.     First  Conflicts  with  the  Judaizing  Christians. — The 

Time  of  Crisis  and  Transition     .        .        .        -1-4, 


CONTENTS. 


BOOK    III. 

I'AGE 

Second  Period  ;  or,   The   Period  of  the   Great 

Conflicts 135-21 1 

I.     The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 137 

II.     The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians       .         .         .156 

III.  The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  .        .         .  165 

IV.  The  Epistle  to  the  Romans     .        .        .        .        .  185 

BOOK   IV. 

Third  Period:  The  Paulinism  of  Later  Times  213-272 
I.     The   Address    at    Miletus. —  Appearance    of   the 
Gnostic  Asceticism. — New  Evolution  in  Paul's 

Theological  Doctrine 214 

II.     The  Epistles  to  Philemon,  to  the  Colossians^and 

.  to  the  Ephesians 225 

III.  The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians 250 

IV.  The  Three  Pastoral  Epistles  .       ^        .        .        .  263 

BOOK   V. 

Organic  Form  of  Paul's  Theological  System    273-340 
I.    The  Person  of  Christ,  the  Principle  of  the  Christian 

Consciousness 282 

1 1.    -The  Christian  Principle  in  the  Sphere  of  Psycholo^ 

(Anthropology) 286 

III.  The  Christian  Principle  in  the  Sphere  of  Society 
and  History  (The  Religious  Philosophy  of 
History')      , 307 

IV.  The  Christian  Principle  in  the  Sphere  of  Meta- 
physics (Theology)     .        .        ...        .321 


CONTENTS. 


ADDITIONAL    ESSAY    ON    THE    EPISTLES    TO 
TIMOTHY  AND  TITUS. 


Introduction 

I.     The  Pastoral  Epistles  in  Modern  Criticism 
1 1.     The  Vocabulary  and  Style 

III.  The  Personal  Data 

IV.  The  Doctrinal  Characteristics 

V^     The  Church  System  of  the  Pastorals 


PAGE 

343 
344 
353 
362 

374 
390 


INTRODUCTION. 

IT  is  the  tendency  of  all  tradition,  and  of  religious 
tradition  more  especially,  to  resolve  into  type 
and  symbol  the  persons  of  those  whom  it  has  once 
enshrined.  It  is  thus  that  the  figures  of  Christ's  first 
apostles  have  generally  assumed  a  sacredness  and 
immutability  resembling  that  of  their  stone  statues 
as  we  see  them  ranged  in  frigid,  symmetrical  order 
on  the  front  of  our  cathedrals.  And  yet  these  daring 
missionaries  of  the  Christian  faith  were  real  men,  men 
of  their  own  race  and  age,  each  bringing  his  peculiar 
temperament  and  genius  to  bear  upon  the  work  that 
it  had  fallen  to  their  lot  to  accomplish.  It  should 
be  the  aim  of  history  to  discover  this  original  and 
distinctive  physiognomy  beneath  legend  and  dogma, 
the  individual  life  in  the  traditional  type,  and,  in 
short,  the  man  in  the  apostle.  And  such  has  been 
the  end,  whether  consciously  or  unconsciously  pur- 
sued, of  all  the  work  of  Biblical  criticism  and  exegesis 
accomplished  during  the  last  fifty  years. 

Unfortunately,  this  kind  of  historical  resurrection 
is  impossible  for  the  majority  of  the  apostles,  whose 
work  was,  as  it  were,  anonymous,  and  done  in  com- 
mon, leaving  no  personal  trace  beyond  a  bare  name, 
and  that  often  uncertain  and  surrounded  by  legend. 
But  with  the  thirteenth  and  latest  apostle,  Paul  of 

I 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Tarsus,  the  missionary  to  the  Gentiles,  the  case  is 
very  different.  Not  only  are  we  in  undoubted  pos- 
session of  several  of  his  authentic  writings,  but  his 
genius  and  passion  have  inspired  them  with  an  in- 
tensity of  life  which  renders  them  the  free  and 
spontaneous  revelation  of  his  soul, — one  of  the  most 
powerful  and  original  that  ever  came  into  being. 
True,  the  beginning  and  end  of  his  life  are  involved 
in  obscurity  ;  but  thanks  to  his  epistles  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Romans,  and  Philip- 
pians  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  detailed  narrative  of 
the  second  part  of  Acts  on  the  other,  we  have  a  vivid 
light  thrown  upon  a  period  of  more  than  twelve  years 
in  the  very  midst  of  the  apostle's  career,  in  which  his 
personality  stands  out  with  wonderful  distinctness. 

Starting  from  this  luminous  centre,  we  are  enabled, 
by  means  of  historical  and  psychological  induction, 
to  trace  the  main  tenor  of  his  life  with  a  fair  amount 
of  certainty.  For  this  purpose,  dates  and  places  and 
external  things  are  of  minor  importance.  It  has  been 
our  aim  to  write  not  a  general  biography  of  Paul, 
but  a  biography  of  his  mind,  and  the  history  of  his 
thought. 

I.    Progressive  Character  of  Paulinism. 

•  The  law  of  development  is  so  inseparable  from  the 
idea  of  life  that  we  always  assume  its  action,  even 
when  we  cannot  trace  it.  In  the  life  of  Paul  it  is 
strikingly  obvious.  The  more  we  study  his  writings 
and  theology,  the  more  we  feel  that  it  was  impossible 
for  a  mind  so  ardent  and  so  laborious  speedily  to 
reach  its  limits  and  to  rest  in  its  final  conclusions, 
and  that  a  system  of  thought  so  richly  and  solidly 
constructed  could  not  be  completed  at  a  stroke.     The 


INTRODUCTION. 


agency  of  dialectics  is  equally  apparent  with  that  of 
inspiration.  At  the  same  time,  we  must  not  think 
of  the  apostle  as  a  professed  theologian,  absorbed  in 
elaborating  a  speculative  system.  He  was  a  mis- 
sionary and  a  preacher.  His  mind  followed  the  guid- 
ance of  circumstances,  equally  with  abstract  logic  ;  it 
developed  organically  and  spontaneously,  in  response 
to  the  demand  for  new  solutions  or  deductions  made 
upon  it  by  the  course  of  events.  His  great  soul 
knew  no  repose  ;  the  thinker  kept  pace  with  the 
missionary ;  mind  and  will  were  at  equal  tension, 
and  within  and  without  were  displayed  the  same 
ardour  and  the  same  energy.  The  Gospel  that  he 
preached  to  the  heathen  had  to  be  freed  from  Judaism, 
and  justified  to  the  Christian  understanding  by  ex- 
perience and  by  Old  Testament  exegesis.  The  man 
who  spread  the  name  of  Jesus  from  the  borders  of 
Palestine  to  the  confines  of  the  West  is  the  same 
who  wrote  the  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Colossians  ; 
and  the  distance  between  Jerusalem  and  Rome  is  but 
a  type  of  that  much  longer  road  the  Gospel  traversed 
from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  the  Christianity 
of  these  great  epistles. 

The  course  of  development  pursued  by  the  apostle's 
doctrine  lies  between  these  two  limits.  Taking  its 
departure  from  the  first  apostolic  preaching,  it  reaches 
its  goal  in  the  theological  system  to  which  we  have 
just  referred.  The  internal  progress  of  his  thought 
corresponds  exactly  with  the  external  progress  of  his 
mission  ;  and  both  were  alike  stormy  and  full  of  con- 
flict. This  history  has  more  than  a  merely  personal 
and  psychological  interest  ;  it  is  virtually  the  history 
of  the  revolution  which  first  emancipated  Christianity 
and  constituted  it  an  independent  religion,  beyond  the 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


sacred  inclosure  of  the  Jewish  nation.  This  revolu- 
tion, as  we  know,  had  various  phases.  Paul  did  not 
in  his  early  days  see  the  full  bearing  of  the  liberal 
and  individualistic  principle  that  he  was  introducing 
into  the  traditional  faith,  nor  all  the  consequences  of 
the  work  he  was  doing  in  the  heathen  world.  Thej' 
only  revealed  themselves  to  his  understanding  pro- 
gressively. He  walked  bravely,  but  only  by  one  step 
at  a  time,  in  the  unknown  path  at  the  beginning  of 
which,  in  spite  of  himself,  the  very  special  character 
of  his  conversion  had  placed  him  from  the  outset. 

We  insist  on  this  point,  because  it  is  ignored  alike 
by  those  whose  theory  of  a  mechanical  and  wholesale 
theopneustia  leaves  no  room  for  the  workings  of  the 
apostle's  own  mind,  and  by  those  who  make  him  out 
to  have  been  a  sort  of  speculative  genius,  creating  a 
priori  and  in  solitude  the  system  that  he  was  after- 
wards to  preach  and  defend.  Take  as  an  illustration 
one  of  the  great  declarations  of  Paul :  his  doctrine 
of  the  abolition  of  the  Mosaic  laiv  as  a  system  and  a 
means  of  salvation.  It  is  evident  that  he  reached 
this  position  by  degrees.  At  first  he  was  able  to 
content  himself  with  having  obtained  at  the  famous 
conference  at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii. ;  Acts  xv.)  a  dispen- 
sation from  circumcision  for  Christians  of  heathen 
origin.  A  few  years  later  this  had  ceased  to  satisfy 
him.  His  mind  being  of  an  essentially  dialectic 
cast,  he  rose  from  the  concrete  fact  to  the  absolute 
principle.  He  had  not  set  out  by  formulating  the 
latter  in  its  abstract  generality,  but  having  found  from 
experience  that  the  law  was  of  no  avail  in  the  salva- 
tion of  the  Gentiles,  it  seemed  to  him  no  longer 
essential  to  the  Jews  ;  and  he  ended  by  formulating 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Romans  his  profound  and  original 


INTRODUCTION. 


theory  as  to  its  scope :  z'/r.  that  its  purpose  was  not 
to  save  sinners,  but  on  the  contrary  to  multiply  sin, 
in  order  to  deliver  up  the  guilty  conscience  more 
entirely  to  the  grace  of  God.  Examine  this  theory 
more  closely  ;  you  will  soon  see  traces  of  the  violent 
conflicts  out  of  which  it  was  evolved.  It  is  not  a 
primitive  belief,  but  a  final  conclusion — the  sum  of 
a  long  experience,  and  the  end  of  a  fierce  controversy. 
We  might  further  quote  passages  from  the  epistle 
to  the  Galatians  (Gal.  i.  lo;  v.  1 1)  which  seem  to  imply 
changes  in  Paul's  conduct  with  respect  to  circumcision 
and  the  Christians  of  Palestine.  But  what  is  the  use 
of  putting  forward  uncertain  inferences,  when  we  have 
elsewhere  a  striking  proof  of  the  very  clear  conscious- 
ness the  apostle  had  of  the  successive  modifications 
and  constant  progress  of  his  Christian  views  ?  How 
many  times  he  laments  the  incapacity  of  his  efforts 
to  grasp  all  the  riches  of  the  Gospel !  "  When  I  was 
a  child,"  he  writes  to  the  Corinthians,  "  I  spoke  as 
a  child,  I  felt  as  a  child,  I  reasoned  as  a  child  (comp. 
I  Cor.  iii.  i);  now  that  I  am  become  a  man  (comp. 
I  Cor.  xvi.  13),  I  have  put  away  childish  thoughts." 
Reference  is  here  made,  as  the  parallel  passages  show, 
to  the  childhood  and  maturity  of  the  Christian  life. 
Can  it  be  doubted  that  the  mind  of  the  man  who 
wrote  these  words  obeyed  the  natural  laws  of  all 
human  knowledge,  and  that  there  were  elementary 
conceptions  which  it  had  already  left  behind  ?  In 
fact,  this  idea  of  progress  is  inherent  in  Paul's  theo- 
logy, and  essential  to  it.  Even  his  present  knowledge, 
which  he  regards  as  that  of  mature  years,  does  not 
really  satisfy  him.  In  the  recollection  of  progress 
achieved  he  only  sees  a  cause  and  pledge  of  further 
progress.     The  distance  separating  him   from  child- 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


hood  is  but  an  image  to  him  of  that  which  still 
separates  him  from  the  ultimate  goal.  At  no  period 
did  his  conceptions  appear  to  him  either  complete 
or  final.  "  Now  wc  see  as  in  a  dim  mirror  ;  one  day 
we  shall  see  face  to  face.  My  knowledge  is  but 
imperfect  and  partial ;  one  day  I  shall  know  as  I  have 
been  known"  (i  Cor.  xiii.  ii  ff.). 

The  older  the  apostle  grew,  the  more  this  natural 
feeling  strengthened  in  him.  This  is  how  he  wrote 
to  the  Philippians  a  few  years  before  his  death  :  "  I 
do  not  imagine  that  I  have  reached  the  goal,  nor 
obtained  perfection  ;  but  I  am  pursuing  it.  This  one 
thing  I  do  :  forgetting  the  things  which  are  behind 
me,  I  strenuously  press  toward  those  which  are  before. 
I  see  the  goal,  and  march  on  to  it"  (Phil.  iii.  12-16). 
The  sequel  clearly  shows  that  the  progress  in  question 
has  as  least  as  much  reference  to  his  mental  develop- 
ment as  to  his  moral  perfection.  "If  you  think  dif- 
ferently from  me  in  anything,"  he  adds,  "God  shall 
make  known  the  truth  to  you.  Meantime,  let  us  walk 
in  unity  in  the  common  knowledge  which  wc  have 
already  attained." 

It  would  have  been  astonishing  if  an  idea  so  natural 
in  itself,  and  so  clearly  indicated  in  the  text,  had  not 
been  pointed  out  by  modern  criticism.  But  we  have 
no  such  omission  to  complain  of  As  soon,  in  fact, 
as  Paul's  life  and  writings  began  to  be  studied  from 
an  historical  point  of  view,  the  idea  of  a  progressive 
development  in  his  views  compelled  attention  to  itself. 
Usteri  clearly  suggested  the  idea,  in  a  work  of  which 
the  third  edition  appeared  as  early  as  1831  ;^  but  at 
the  same  time  he  abandoned  it  as  incapable  of  de- 

'  Entwickeliing  des  PauUnischen  Lehrbegriffes,  p.  7. 


INTRODUCTION. 


monstration,  because  the  historical  connexion  of  the 
authentic  letters  was  still  undefined,  and  their  chrono- 
logy unsettled,  while  the  great  critical  epochs  of  the 
apostle's  life  were  wholly  unrecognised. 

The  work  of  reconstruction  could  not  be  resumed 
with  any  chance  of  success,  until  the  task  of  patient 
and  minute  analysis  had  been  fi'rst  performed.  The 
honour  of  this  achievement  belongs  to  Baur.^  Thanks 
to  his  critical  studies,  abundant  light  has  been  thrown 
upon  Paul's  epistles  ;  their  order  of  sequence  has  been 
recovered,  their  distinctive  features  clearly  defined, 
the  historical  events  that  occasioned  them  perfectly 
established,  and  their  differences  marked  out  not  less 
plainly  than  their  resemblances.  In  short,  the  first 
and  essential  conditions  for  tracing  out  the  apostle's 
mental  history  were  fulfilled. 

It  is  true  that  Baur's  refusal  to  recognise  as 
authentic  anything  but  the  doctrinal  type  evolved 
from  the  great  central  epistles  (Galatians,  Corinthians, 
and  Romans)  prevented  him  from  completing  this 
task  himself  But  since  then  the  epistles  to  the  Thes- 
salonians,  to  Philemon,  and  to  the  Philippians  have 
asserted  their  place  by  the  side  of  these,  not  to  mention 
others  whose  authenticity  is  now  generally  admitted, 
even  by  the  severest  critics.  Yet  the  dogmatic  dif- 
ferences pointed  out  by  Baur  exist  all  the  same.  And 
thus,  while  maintaining  the  Pauline  origin  of  these 
other  writings,  and  recognising  at  the  same  time  their 
distinct  doctrinal  types,  modern  criticism  is  shut  up 
more  and  more  to  a  contradiction,  of  which  the  only 
and  inevitable  solution  is  found  in  the  conception  of 

'  Pattlus  der  Apostel Jesu  Chrisli,  2nd  ed.,  1866  [Eng.  trans., 
1873]- 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


a  progressive  development  in  the  apostle's  system  of 
thought.  This  solution  was  still  much  disputed  when 
the  first  edition  of  this  book  appeared  [1870].  But  at 
the  present  date,  though  subject  to  some  modification 
in  detail,  it  has  triumphed  completely. 

On  reviewing,  as  a  whole,  those  epistles  of  Paul 
which  have  been  preserved  to  us,  we  see  that  they  fall 
naturally  into  three  groups:  (i)  The  epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians,  which  appear  to  be  simply  an  echo  of 
his  missionary  preaching.  (2)  The  great  epistles  to 
the  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans,  the  outcome 
of  his  conflicts  with  the  Judaizers.  (3)  The  epistles 
of  the  Captivity.  Each  of  these  groups  contains  a 
homogeneous  and  clearly  defined  type  of  doctrine 
equally  characteristic  in  its  turn  of  thought  and  in 
the  nature  of  its  polemics.  It  is  no  less  easy  to  per- 
ceive that  these  three  types  have  a  logical  sequence, 
and  correspond  exactly  with  the  great  periods  of  the 
apostle's  life :  the  first  dominated  by  his  missionary 
activities  and  interests  ;  the  second  by  his  fierce 
struggle  against  Judaism  ;  the  third  by  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Gnostic  asceticism. 

Will  the  establishment  of  these  three  periods  enable 
us,  then,  to  understand  how  the  doctrine  of  Paul,  by 
virtue  of  its  inner  principle  and  under  the  outward 
pressure  of  events,  developed  from  its  elementary 
into  its  higher  form  ?  And  will  this  conception  of  a 
natural  and  necessary  development  solve  the  problems 
to  which  the  historical  exegesis  of  his  epistles  has 
given  rise  ?     That  is  the  whole  question. 

Our  answer  lies  in  the  reconstruction  that  we  have 
attempted  in  this  volume,  and  it  will  be  enough  here 
to  explain  its  historical  basis  and  mode  of  procedure. 


INTRODUCTION. 


We  find  our  starting-point  in  the  middle  group  of 
Paul's  writings — the  four  great  epistles  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans,  which  are  closely 
consecutive  and  intimately  related  to  each  other.  The 
system  of  Paul,  eminently  dialectic,  is  here  developed 
in  its  strong  antithesis  to  the  Judaistic  tendency. 
Here,  in  the  midst  of  the  apostle's  career,  it  presents 
itself  in  a  phase  in  the  highest  degree  characteristic 
and  indisputably  genuine.  But  however  important 
and  glorious,  this  stage  of  Paul's  doctrine  is  not  the 
only  one,  a  fact  to  be  carefully  borne  in  mind.  These 
letters  written  one  after  another  from  Ephesus,  Mace- 
donia, and  Corinth  during  Paul's  last  missionary 
journey,  belong  only  to  one  period,  and  that  the  short- 
est, of  his  life,  to  an  interval  of  three  or  four  years  in  a 
career  which  lasted  for  nearly  thirty.  Must  we  forego 
all  knowledge — all  conjecture  even — as  to  the  twenty 
years  which  preceded,  or  the  six  which  followed  it  ? 

Nay,  indeed  :  we  are  bold  to  affirm  that  Paul  the 
missionary  must  have  thought  and  spoken  differently 
from  the  dialectician  of  these  great  letters.  How 
could  they  have  been  understood,  unless  those  who 
received  them  had  had  previous  preparation  ?  On 
examining  them  more  nearly,  we  can  plainly  see 
that  Paul's  dialectic  expression  of  thought  is  due 
to  an  external  fact,  to  his  conflict  with  Judaism. 
The  argument  of  the  apostle  cannot  be  understood 
apart  from  that  of  his  opponents.  In  other  words,  we 
have  here  an  antithesis,  the  first  member  of  which  is 
determined  and  conditioned  by  the  second.  We  may 
safely  affirm  that  before  the  outbreak  of  Judaistic 
opposition  the  teaching  of  Paul  could  not  possibly 
have  taken  the  form  and  development  which  this 
opposition  alone  could  give. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Now,  we  are  well  informed  of  the  origin  and  date 
of  this  conflict.  It  could  not  have  arisen  before  the 
success  of  the  great  missions  to  the  heathen,  because 
their  success  was  the  cause  of  it.  Besides,  we  have* 
on  this  point  the  express  declaration  of  the  apostle 
himself  in  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians  (chap.  i.  18-24). 
He  went,  he  tells  us,  three  years  after  his  conversion 
to  visit  and  confer  with  Peter  at  Jerusalem.  From 
thence  he  went  to  Syria  and  Cilicia,  and  the  Churches 
of  Judaea  rejoiced  and  gave  thanks  for  his  ministry 
in  those  regions.  The  controversy,  therefore,  did  not 
then  exist.  It  only  broke  out  fourteen  years  later 
(Gal.  ii.  i),  when  the  Pharisaic  Christians  came  to 
Antioch  and  tried  to  force  circumcision  upon  the 
heathen  converts.  Here  then  is  an  earlier  and  pro- 
longed period,  during  which  the  doctrine  of  Paul, 
developing  under  other  conditions  and  amid  other 
conflicts,  must  inevitably  have  taken  a  simpler,  a  more 
practical  and  general  form.  Can  we  discover  the 
moment  at  which  the  crisis  that  transformed  it  came 
about  ? 

At  the  conference  of  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  ;  Acts  xv.) 
new  and  weighty  questions  presented  themselves  to 
Paul's  mind  ;  but  they  were  not  at  once  solved.  He 
contented  himself,  as  we  have  said  already,  with 
having  secured  for  the  heathen  a  dispensation  from 
circumcision.  The  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians, 
written  a  little  later,  are  still  without  any  sign  of 
contention  with  Judaizers.  Evidently  the  apostle  has 
left  Jerusalem  and  set  out  on  his  second  missionary 
journey  fully  satisfied  with  his  victory,  and  without 
any  anxiety  as  to  the  future.  The  precise  moment 
of  the  crisis  must  therefore  have  occurred  between  the 
epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  and  the  epistle  to  the 


INTRODUCTION. 


Galatians.  What  happened  in  this  intenal  ?  The 
violent  dispute  bctiveen  Peter  and  Paul  at  Antioch 
(Gal.  ii.  ii-2i),^  and  all  that  the  recital  of  it  reveals 
to  us  :  the  arrival  of  messengers  from  James  in  the 
Gentile  Christian  community,  and  the  counter-mission 
organized  by  the  Judaizers  to  rectify  the  work  of  Paul. 
It  was  this  new  situation,  suddenly  presenting  itself 
to  the  apostle  on  his  return  from  his  second  missionary 
journey,  which  by  compelling  him  to  enter  the  con- 
test, led  him  to  formulate  in  all  its  rigour  his  prin- 
ciple of  the  abrogation  of  the  law  (Gal.  ii.  i6). 

While  admitting  a  development  in  Paul's  doctrine 
during  this  long  and  obscure  primitive  period,  some 
may  perhaps  consider  that  it  ceased  with  the  epistle 
to  the  Galatians.  Now,  they  would  say,  it  has  come 
to  realize  its  essential  principle  ;  it  cannot  make 
further  progress.  No  doubt  this  epistle  marks  an 
epoch  in  the  apostle's  life  ;  but  it  is  a  point  of  de- 
parture, rather  than  a  halting  place  ;  it  inaugurates  a 
new  era.  Far  from  being  at  rest,  the  mind  of  Paul 
was  never  more  active  and  eager,  never  more  fertile 
than  during  this  stormy  period.  Involved  from  the 
first  in  the  glaring  antithesis  of  law  and  faith,  his  mind 
strives  to  get  beyond  and  above  it  to  a  loftier  point  of 
view,  from  which  he  may  bring  about  its  synthesis, 
by  the  subordination  of  the  one  principle  to  the  other. 

In  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians  his  view  had 
already  expanded  beyond  these  limits,  and  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans  it  is  transformed  ;  larger  pro- 


'  We  place  this  event  not  at  the  return  of  Paul  to  Antioch 
after  the  conference  at  Jerusalem  ('Acts  xv.  33),  but  at  his 
return  from  his  second  missionary  journey  (Acts  xviii.  23). 
Thus  Neander,  Wieseler,  Renan,  etc. 


THE  APOSILE  PAUL. 


spects  open  before  it.  But  there  is  no  more  reason 
for  arresting  his  mental  progress  at  Romans  than  at 
Galatians.  New  events  and  an  altered  situation  lead 
to  a  new  expansion  of  thought. 

The  last  period  of  his  life  is  of  an  entirely  peculiar 
character,  determined  by  certain  leading  facts.  To 
begin  with,  Paul  was  in  prison.  This  captivity,  in 
snatching  him  from  the  duties  and  conflicts  of  his  mis- 
sionary work,  afforded  him  leisure ;  it  sentenced  him 
to  solitude  and  to  meditation.  Furthermore,  there  was 
springing  up  a  tendency  at  once  ascetic  and  specu- 
lative, a  sort  of  early  Gnosticism,  which  invaded  Paul's 
Churches  and  threatened  to  ruin  them.  Naturally, 
and  logically,  these  errors  called  forth  a  fresh  develop- 
ment of  the  apostle's  doctrine,  more  speculative  and 
more  theological  than  the  other  two.  Thus  it  reached 
its  highest  level  in  the  epistles  of  the  Captivity. 

The  three  periods  of  Paul's  life  which  we  have  in- 
dicated, are  as  follows : 

First  Period. — Primitive  Paidinism  :  From  the 
conversion  of  Paul  to  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians. 
Documents:  The  missionary  discourses  in  the  Acts, 
and  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  This  is  the 
adolescence  of  the  apostle's  system  of  thought. 

Second  Period. — The  Paidinism  of  the  great 
epistles:  From  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  to  the 
imprisonment  of  Paul.  Documents :  the  epistles  to 
the  Galatians,  Corinthians,  and  Romans.  This  is  the 
virile  and  heroic  age  of  his  mind. 

Third  Period. — Paidinism  of  later  days:  P>om 
the  beginning  of  his  captivity  until  his  death.  Docu- 
ments :  the  epistles  to  Philemon,  Colossians,  Ephc- 
sians,  and  Philippians  ;  the  parallel  record  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  (Acts  xx.  to  the  end),  especially  the 


introduction:  13 


discourse  at  Miletus.     This  is  the  age  of  perfect  and 
full  maturity. 

Such  is  the  course  and  plan  of  this  history.  To 
these  three  essential  divisions  two  more  must  be 
added  :  the  first,  in  which  the  historical  and  psycho- 
logical origin  of  Paul's  theology  will  be  set  forth  ;  and 
the  last,  a  necessary  conclusion  to  our  history,  in  which 
we  shall  endeavour  to  explain  his  theological  system 
in  its  definitive  form,  and  to  sketch  its  organism. 

II.    Chronology. 

Before  commencing  our  narrative,  it  is  important 
to  fix  as  nearly  as  possible  the  chronology  of  the 
apostle's  life. 

Let  us  admit,  to  begin  with,  that  the  dates  of  his 
birth  and  death  are  completely  lost  to  us.  For  us, 
his  historical  career  ends  at  the  year  63  or  64  A.D. 
The  writer  of  the  Acts  leaves  him  in  his  prison  at 
Rome  two  years  after  he  had  entered  it.  From  that 
time  we  know  nothing  of  him.  Did  he  perish  in  the 
burning  of  the  city  (July,  A.D.  64),  or  in  the  persecution 
which  followed  ?  Was  he  released  ?  Did  he  go  to 
Spain,  as  he  intended  ?  Did  he  come  back  to  the 
East  and  return  to  Rome,  to  die  on  the  same  day  as 
Peter  in  6y  or  68  A.D.,  according  to  Catholic  tradition  ? 
On  all  these  points  we  have  nothing  but  idle  con- 
jecture or  legends. 

Nor  are  we  any  better  informed  as  to  the  date 
of  his  birth.  The  only  two  indications  of  which  we 
can  avail  ourselves,  are  the  epithet  veavia<;  applied  to 
him  by  Luke  (Acts  vii.  58)  at  the  time  of  Stephen's 
stoning,  and  that  of  iTpe<T^vTr}<i  which  he  applies  to 
himself  in  his  epistle  to  Philemon,  written  about  A.D. 
60.     These  tw  o  expressions  are  very  vague  ;  and  it  is 


14  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


even  necessary  to  strain  them  a  good  deal  in  order 
to  make  them  agree.  The  latter  and  more  authentic 
reference  proves  that  in  A.D.  60  Paul  had  at  least 
passed  his  fiftieth  year.  Give  him  a  few  years  more, 
and  he  is  almost  exactly  contemporary  with  Jesus. 
This  much  must  be  admitted,  if  we  are  to  give  any 
credit  to  an  indication  from  the  oratio  encoiniastica 
in  principes  apostolorum  Pet  nun  ct  Panlnni,  wrongly 
ascribed  to  Chrysostom,  but  which  is  found  in  his 
works.  We  read  there,  in  effect,  that  Paul  died  in 
his  sixty-eighth  year  {6"]  or  68  A.D.),  after  having 
ser\'ed  the  Lord  for  thirty-five  years.  This  last  figure 
is  exaggerated  ;  but  at  all  events,  Paul  was  born  at 
Tarsus  about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era. 

What  is  of  more  importance  is  to  fix  the  principal 
dates  .of  his  life.  To  this  end  we  must  first  seek  in 
his  long  career  for  a  date,  perfectly  established,  which 
may  serve  for  our  point  of  departure  and  a  basis  of 
all  our  calculations.  It  is  not  to  be  found  till  the 
close  of  his  history.  We  may  determine  beyond  dis- 
pute, almost  to  a  year,  the  date  of  his  departure  to 
Rome  from  the  prison  at  Caesarea,  We  know  that 
he  was  sent  thither  by  Porcius  Festus,  a  few  months 
after  the  arrival  of  that  governor  in  Palestine  (Acts 
xxiv.  27).  Now  the  arrival  of  Festus  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  taken  place  earlier  than  60,  nor  later  than 

62  A.D.,  because  he  was  succeeded   in  the  summer  of 

63  by  Albinus.  (Compare  the  following  data :  Tacitus, 
Ann.  xiv.  65  ;  Josephus,  Ant.  xx.  8.  9,  n  ;  Bell.  Jud. 
vi.  5.  3 ;  De  vita  3.)  We  can  only  hesitate  therefore 
between  the  years  60  and  61.  We  prefer  60,  because 
even  with  this  date  the  mission  of  Festus  would  only 
have  lasted  two  years  ;  and  one  year  seems  too  short 
a   space    for   all    the   events   narrated    by   Josephus. 


INTRODUCTION.  15 


From  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  we  gather  that  Paul 
embarked  for  Rome  in  the  autumn,  and  that  Festus 
had  entered  upon  office  some  months  before,  at  the 
beginning  of  summer.  The  apostle  had  then  been 
in  prison  for  two  full  years  ;  which  fixes  the  begin- 
ning of  his  captivity  at  the  Pentecost  of  58  (or  59)  A.D. 
(Acts  xxi.  27-33).  Looking  backwards  from  this 
point,  we  can  trace  accurately  the  course  of  Paul's 
life.  He  had  kept  the  Passover  of  this  same  year 
at  Philippi  in  Macedonia  (xx.  6),  having  arrived  there 
from  Corinth,  where  he  had  spent  the  three  months 
of  winter  (57-8,  or  58-9),  and  written  his  epistle  to  the 
Romans.  He  had  therefore  reached  Corinth  towards 
the  end  of  57  (or  8)  A.D.  How  he  was  occupied  during 
the  previous  year  we  know  very  certainly  from  his  two 
letters  to  the  Corinthians,  the  second  of  which  was 
written  in  Macedonia  in  the  autumn,  and  the  first 
at  Ephesus  about  the  time  of  the  previous  Passover 
(l  Cor.  xvi.  8;  V.  7  ;  2  Cor.  ii.  12,  13).  The  remarkable 
agreement,  during  this  period  of  Paul's  life,  between 
the  data  given  in  his  great  epistles  and  those  of  the 
Acts  gives  to  this  latter  record  a  peculiar  authority, 
and  shows  that  we  are  standing  on  firm  historical 
ground. 

From  the  address  delivered  by  Paul  at  Miletus  after 
the  Passover  of  58  (or  59)  A.D.,  we  learn  that  he  had 
sojourned  three  years  at  Ephesus,  or  in  the  province 
of  Asia,  so  that  he  must  have  arrived  there  in  the 
spring  of  55.  He  came  thither  from  Antioch,  where 
he  had  spent  the  winter  of  54-55  recruiting  after  his 
second  missionary  journey,  the  occasion  on  which, 
according  to  all  probability,  he  had  his  sharp  dis- 
pute with  Peter  and  Barnabas  (Gal.  ii.  11-15,  and 
Acts  xviii.  22,  23).     Paul  had  then  returned,  as  we 


i6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

have  already  said,  from  his  great  journey  through 
Asia,  Macedonia,  and  Achaia  (Acts  xvi.-xviii.)  This 
journey  cannot  have  occupied  less  than  two  years,  or 
two  years  and  a  half,  since  the  stay  at  Corinth  alone 
consumed  more  than  eighteen  months  (Acts  xviii. 
ii).  This  obliges  us  to  place  the  beginning  of  the 
journey  in  the  spring  of  52,  and  the  conference  at 
Jerusalem,  from  which  Paul  was  then  returning,  in 
the  winter  of  51-52  A.D.  (xv.  30  ;  Gal.  ii.  i). 

All  this  chronology  of  the  second  half  of  Paul's  life, 
derived  partly  from  his  own  epistles  and  partly  from 
the  narrative  in  Acts  given  by  an  eye-witness  in  the 
first  person,  is,  so  to  speak,  forced  upon  us  ;  for  it 
will  be  readily  admitted,  however  questionable  some 
of  the  details  of  our  calculation  may  be,  that  a  period 
of  seven  years  (51-58)  is  not  too  long  to  embrace 
all  the  events  of  his  life  and  the  results  of  his  acti- 
vity during  this  period,  of  which  we  have  such  exact 
and  certain  knowledge.  There  is  one  circumstance 
connected  with  Paul's  life  at  Corinth,  moreover, 
that  affords  us  an  approximate  verification.  The 
apostle  on  his  arrival  in  that  city  met  with  a  Jewish 
couple  named  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  who  had  been  ex- 
pelled from  Rome  by  a  decree  of  the  Emperor  Claudius 
(Acts  xviii.  1-3).  If  we  knew  the  date  of  this  edict, 
referred  to  elsewhere  by  Suetonius  ( Vit.  Claud.  25) 
and  Tacitus  {Aim.  xii.  52,  54),  we  should  have  the 
exact  date  of  the  sojourn  of  Paul  at  Corinth.  From 
the  allusions  of  the  two  Roman  historians  we  can  only 
conjecture  that  the  measure  belongs  to  the  later 
years  of  the  reign  of  Claudius.  Orosius,  who  suggests 
the  seventh  year,  is  not  to  be  relied  upon.  Now 
Claudius  died  in  September,  54  A.D.  Paul  must  there- 
fore have  reached  Corinth,  at  any  rate,  before  that 


INTRODUCTION.  17 


year.  If  the  edict  was  issued,  as  the  best  critics  sup- 
pose, in  52,  there  is  obviously  a  sufficient  agreemotit 
between  this  result  and  that  which  we  had  pre- 
viously reached  by  an  entirely  different  method.  We 
have  yet  another,  and  a  more  certain  datum  in  the 
Achaian  proconsulate  of  Gallio,  brother  of  Seneca 
(Acts  xviii.  12).  From  the  life  of  this  personage, 
which  we  can  easily  trace,  we  find  that  he  did  not 
obtain  this  appointment  to  Achaia  till  the  end  of 
Claudius'  life  (Tacitus,^////,  xv.  73  ;  Dio  Cass., Ix.  35  ; 
Pliny,  xxxi.  n,  etc.). 

It  now  remains  to  establish  the  chronology  of  the 
former  half  of  Paul's  apostolic  career,  as  we  have  just 
determined  that  of  the  second.  Here  our  starting 
point  must  of  necessity  be  the  date  of  the  conference 
at  Jerusalem,  to  which  we  have  already  referred — 
the  winter  of  51-52  a.d.  It  will  be  observed  that  it 
cannot  be  fixed  later  than  52,  because  of  the  date  of 
Claudius'  death,  to  which  we  have  just  alluded  ;  and 
this  is  the  important  point.  Accordingly,  the  majority 
of  chronologists  are  divided  between  the  years  51 
and  52  (Hug,  Eichhorn,  Anger,  de  Wette,  etc.).  This 
may  content  us.  Paul  has  given  an  account  of  the 
conference  in  his  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  we  do 
not  think  that  the  parallelism  between  Galatians  ii. 
and  Acts  xv.  can  be  seriously  called  in  question.  This 
being  the  case,  we  have  from  the  pen  of  Paul  himself 
all  the  materials  for  a  precise  chronology.  We  know 
that  at  the  beginning  of  his  epistle  he  defines  in  the 
clearest  manner  his  relations  with  the  Twelve,  and  the 
exact  number  of  his  visits  to  Jerusalem — two  in  all — 
up  to  that  time,  including  the  apostolic  conference. 
In  such  an  argument  it  is  plain  he  could  not  possibly 
omit  a  single  visit,  for  such  omi.ssion  would  have  laid 


i8  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


him  open  to  the  charge  of  falsehood.  We  must  there- 
fore consider  the  journey  mentioned  in  Acts  xi.  30  as 
apocryphal,^  it  being  positively  excluded  by  the  de- 
claration of  Paul  himself  (Gal.  i.  22).  It  is  plain  that 
the  first  half  of  Acts  is  not  of  the  same  historical 
worth  as  the  second,  and  that  its  statements  must  be 
tested  by  the  evidence  of  the  authentic  epistles.  Of 
this  we  have  further  proof  If  Luke  adds  a  journey 
of  Paul  to  Jerusalem,  he  omits  the  journey  to  Arabia 
(Gal.  i.  17).  He  has  no  precise  idea  of  the  time 
which  elapsed  between  the  conversion  of  Paul  and 
his  first  visit  to  the  apostles  (Acts  ix.  23  :  7;/(xepat 
iKaval  =  three  years,  according  to  Gal.  i.  18).  We 
cannot  therefore  depend  upon  him  as  before,  and 
must  not  venture  beyond  the  statement  of  the  apostle 
himself 

Happily  this  account  is  as  explicit  as  it  is  vigorous 
and  concise.  Paul  relates  that  he  paid  his  first  visit 
to  Peter  and  James  at  Jerusalem  three  years  after  his 
conversion  (Gal.  i.  18).  He  only  spent  fifteen  days  with 
them.  Then  he  went  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  Syria 
and  Cilicia.  The  Churches  of  Judaea  had  not  even 
seen  his  face.  It  was  not  till  fourteen  years  after- 
wards that  he  made  his  second  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
on  the  occasion  of  the  apostolic  conference  (Gal.  ii. 
i).  Since  this  conference,  as  we  have  already  pointed 
out,   was    held  in  51-52   A.D.,  in  order  to  ascertain 

[•  But  Acts  xi.  29,  30;  xii.  25  say  nothing  which  implies  that 
on  this  occasion  Paul  met  the  chiefs  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem, 
or  made  himself  "known  by  face  to  the  Churches  of  Judaea." 
The  gift  was  sent  "to  the  elders";  and  at  a  time  of  severe 
persecution  (Acts  xii.  i),  therefore  probably  in  a  secret  and 
expeditious  v/ay.  For  all  that  Luke  says,  Paul  himself  may  not 
even  have  set  foot  in  Jerusalem.] 


INTRODUCTION.  19 


exactly  the  date  of  his  conversion,  we  must  find  out 
from  what  point  he  himself  reckons  these  fourteen 
years.  In  our  opinion,  there  is  no  room  for  doubt. 
The  adverb  -noKiv  (Gal.  ii.  i),  showing  that  Paul  was 
accounting  for  his  visits  to  the  Holy  City  ;  the  pre- 
position hia  which  he  uses  here  (instead  of  yu^-ra^  which 
we  find  in  i.  18),  indicating  the  time  during  which 
he  affirms  that  he  had  not  set  foot  in  Jerusalem, 
prove  beyond  a  doubt  that  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the 
number  fourteen  is  his  first  journey,  previously  men- 
tioned (Gal.  i.  18),  not  the  event  of  his  conversion. 
To  obtain  the  date  of  the  latter,  then,  we  must  add 
the  fourteen  years  spent  in  Syria  and  Cilicia  to  the 
three  years  previously  spent  in  Arabia,  or  at  Damascus. 
Paul,  therefore,  had  been  a  Christian  seventeen  years 
when  he  came  to  attend  the  conference  at  Jerusalem 
in  51  or  52;  and  this  carries  back  the  date  of  his 
conversion  to  the  year  35  A.D.,  at  the  latest. 

The  only  objection  that  can  be  made  to  this  date, 
which  is  not,  we  admit,  the  one  generally  received 
(this  varies  between  the  years  -^y  and  42),  is  that  the 
murder  of  Stephen  must  then  have  occurred  before  36 
A.D. — that  is,  before  the  recall  of  Pilate.  And  this,  it  is 
argued,  is  improbable;  for  Pilate,  if  still  in  office, would 
not  have  allowed  a  murder  which  amounted  on  the 
part  of  the  Jews  to  a  usurpation  of  judicial  power. 
But  on  what  a  thread  hung  Paul's  life  in  the  like  cir- 
cumstances (Acts  xxi.  31)!  The  execution  of  Stephen, 
occurring  in  a  popular  riot,  might  have  happened 
before  the  Romans  were  aware.  And  it  is  as  easy  to 
assume  a  temporary  absence  of  Pilate,  as  a  subsequent 
interregnum  ;  in  which  latter  case,  moreover,  the  au- 
thority of  Rome  would  not  be  left  without  a  represen- 
tative.    The  uncertain  inference  drawn  from  Luke's 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


narrative  could  not,  in  any  case,  be  maintained  in  face 
of  Paul's  definite  statements  ;  and  we  can  only  over- 
throw the  date  of  35  A.D.  for  his  conversion  by  over- 
throwing that  of  52  for  the  conference  at  Jerusalem. 
This  latter  once  established,  the  remainder  of  the  cal- 
culation is  a  matter  of  course. 

The  history  of  Damascus,  as  we  find  to  our  regret, 
is  too  obscure  for  us  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  allusion 
made  by  Paul  in  2  Corinthians  xi.  32.  At  the  time  of 
his  conversion  there  was  still  in  that  city  an  ethnarch, 
representing  Aretas  the  king.  The  Romans  may 
very  well  have  been  able  to  leave  the  government  of 
Damascus  to  a  vassal  until  36  A.D.  But  immediately 
after  this  time,  and  before  the  death  of  Tiberius,  war 
broke  out  between  king  Aretas  on  the  one  side,  and 
Herod  Antipas  and  Rome  on  the  other  ;  so  that  it 
is  impossible  to  see  how  the  king  of  Arabia  could 
have  retained  any  later  the  authority  and  privileges 
hitherto  allowed  him  in  Damascus.  This  suggests  a 
further  indirect  confirmation  of  35  A.D.  as  the  date  of 
Paul's  conversion,  which  we  had  arrived  at  by  another 
calculation. 

It  only  remains  for  us,  returning  to  the  close  of  the 
apostle's  life,  to  put  together  the  slender  indications 
that  we  have  of  its  date.  He  embarked  for  Rome 
in  the  autumn  of  60  (or  61)  A.D. ;  but  was  compelled 
by  shipwreck  to  winter  in  the  island  of  Malta,  and 
only  reached  the  Eternal  City  in  the  spring  of  61 
(62).  Luke  adds  that  he  remained  there  as  a  prisoner 
for  two  years,  living  in  a  private  house  under  the 
guard  of  a  soldier  ;  then  his  narrative  breaks  off 
abruptly,  and  we  are  confronted  with  the  unknown 
(Acts  xxviii.  30).  Paul  is  supposed  to  have  perished 
in  the  frightful  persecution  caused  by  the  fire  of  Rome 


INTRODUCTION. 


in  July,  64  A.D.  At  the  same  time,  we  would  point 
out  that  the  two  years  of  imprisonment  mentioned 
by  Luke  at  the  end  of  his  book,  ending,  according  to 
our  chronology,  in  the  spring  of  63 — or,  extending  our 
calculation  by  a  year,  in  the  spring  of  64 — must  in  any 
case  have  come  to  an  end  before  the  events  of  the  fire, 
and  the  persecution,  which  cannot  have  broken  out 
until  August  or  September.  All  that  is  certain  is 
that  he  died  a  martyr  at  Rome,  under  Nero  (Clemens 
Romanus  :  i  Epist.  ad  Corinth,  v.). 

Paul's  apostolic  career,  as  known  to  us,  lasted, 
therefore,  twenty-nine  or  thirty  years  ;  and  it  falls 
into  three  distinct  periods,  which  are  summarized  in 
the  following  chronological  table  : 

First  Period. — ESSENTIALLY  MISSIONARY. 

35  A.D.  Conversion  of  Paul.     Journey  to  Arabia. 

38.  First  visit  to  Jerusalem. 

38-49.  Mission  in  Syria  and  Cilicia.  Tarsus  and 
Antioch. 

50-51.  First  missionarj'  journey.  Cyprus,  Pam- 
phylia,  and  Galatia  (Acts  xiii.,  xiv.). 

52,  Conference  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.  ;  Gal.  ii.). 

52-55.  Second  missionary  journey.  Epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians  (from  Corinth). 

Second  Period. — The  Great  Conflicts,  and  the 
Great  Epistles. 

54.  Return  to  Antioch.  Controversy  with  Peter 
(Gal.  ii.  12-22). 

55-57.  Mission  to  Ephesus  and  Asia. 

56.  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

57,  or  58  (Passover).  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians (Ephesus). 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


57,  or  58  (Autumn).  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians (Macedonia). 

58  (Winter).     Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

Third  Period. — The  Captivity. 

58,  or  59  (Pentecost).  Paul  is  arrested  at  Jerusalem. 
58-60,  or  59-61.  Captivity  at  Caesarea.     Epistles  to 

Philemony  Colossians,  and  Ephesians. 

60,  or  61   (Autumn).     Departure  for  Rome. 

61,  or  62  (Spring).     Arrival  of  Paul  in  Rome. 
62-63.  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

6}^,  or  64.  End  of  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles. 

Note. — The  Pastoral  epistles  (so  called)  of  necessity- 
lie  outside  the  known  life  of  Paul.  Their  authenticity 
will  be  discussed  afterwards. 


BOOK    I. 

THE  SOURCES  OF  PAULS  SYSTEM  OF 
THOUGHT. 

THE  sources  of  Paul's  system  of  thought  are  to 
be  discovered  in  these  three  facts  :  in  the 
Pharisaism  which  he  forsook,  the  Christian  Church 
which  he  entered,  and  the  conversion  by  which  he 
passed  from  the  one  to  the  other. 

The  first  of  these  facts  to  be  considered  is  the 
existence  of  the  Church.  It  is  sometimes  forgotten 
that  a  Christian  community  existed  before  Paul, 
hitherto  its  fierce  persecutor,  came  to  join  its  ranks. 
This  conversion,  while  opening  a  new  era  in  his  life, 
was  at  the  same  time  a  bond  of  close  connexion  with 
primitive  Christianity,  and  obliges  us  to  look  beyond 
Paul  himself  for  the  origin  of  his  Christian  belief 

Furthermore,  his  conversion  marked  a  crisis  in  the 
development  of  the  apostolic  Church.  However  un- 
expected it  may  ha\e  been,  this  event,  we  must 
confess,  was  wonderfully  opportune.  At  no  other 
time  could  it  have  had  the  same  import  or  the  same 
consequences.  We  could  not  have  understood  its 
earlier  occurrence,  before  the  death  of  Stephen  ;  nor 
later,  when  the  missions  to  the  heathen  had  been 
already  set  on  foot.  But  happening  just  when  it  did, 
it  seems  to  us  the  most  weighty  fact  of  this  first  age. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


And  it  is  so  closely  linked  with  the  past  which  it 
crowns,  and  the  future  which  it  inaugurates,  that  to 
view  it  apart  from  its  historical  connexion  is  a  thing 
impossible. 

It  is  indeed  in  this  connexion,  and  invested  with 
this  critical  importance,  that  the  conversion  of  Paul  is 
presented  to  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  If  we 
study  the  course  of  this  narrative  with  a  little  atten- 
tion, we  shall  perceive  in  it  three  stages,  constituting 
by  their  logical  sequence  an  internal  progress  within 
the  primitive  Christian  community,  of  which  Paul's 
conversion  is  the  goal  and  natural  conclusion. 

I.  The  first  stage  is  represented  by  the  first  five 
chapters  of  the  Acts.  Judaism  and  Christianity  are 
still  closely  united  and  blended  in  the  creed  of  the 
first  Christians.  Acts  i.-v.  :  Union  of  the  spirit  of 
Cliristianity  itnth  Jeivish  tradition. 

II.  The  second  stage  is  marked  by  the  episode  of 
Stephen.  The  conflict  between  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  principles,  hitherto  latent,  breaks  out  in  the 
most  violent  manner  in  the  speech  and  the  death  of 
the  martyr.  Acts  vi.,  vii. :  Open  struggle  betzveen  the 
fru'ish  and  Christian  principles. 

III.  The  conversion  of  Paul  is  the  third  stage. 
The  conflict  between  the  two  principles,  undetermined 
by  brute  force,  ends  within  the  breast  of  Saul  the 
Pharisee,  by  the  radical  negation  of  the  one  and  the 
triumphant  affirmation  of  the  other.  Acts  ix. :  Triumph 
of  the  Christiayi  over  the  fewisli  principle. 

Such  is  the  progressive  course  of  Luke's  narrative  ; 
and  it  is  in  this  historic  sequence,  and  under  this  light, 
that  we  must  place  and  study  the  great  event  that 
made  Saul  the  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  FIRST  CHRISTIAN   COMMUNITY  AT  JERUSALEM. 
— CHRISTIANITY   AND  JUDAISM. 

THE  first  beginnings  of  the  Christian  Church  are 
involved  in  obscurit}'.  For  the  period  that 
elapsed  between  the  death  of  Jesus  and  the  conver- 
sion of  Saul,  of  which  we  do  not  even  know  the 
length,  we  have  absolutely  no  information  beyond 
that  afforded  by  the  much-disputed  record  given  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.*     But  this  obscure  period  lies 

'  We  attach  no  value  to  the  patristic,  or  heretical  traditions  of 
the  second  century.  They  would  not,  we  think,  have  deserved 
even  the  honour  of  a  critical  discussion,  if  the  results  of  Baur's 
researches  had  not  invested  them  for  a  time  with  some  appear- 
ance of  credit.  How  is  it  possible  to  discuss  with  any  serious- 
ness the  historical  value  of  the  narratives  and  descriptions  of 
the  Clementine  Homilies, — that  romance  in  which  the  dreams 
of  the  Gnostic  are  mingled  with  the  fastidious  scruples  of  the 
Pharisee  ?  They  are  not  popular  traditions,  but  the  work  of 
fancy ;  and  one  cannot  think  the  representation  they  give  of 
Peter  any  more  lifelike  than  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  The 
famous  portrait  of  James  furnished  by  Hegesippus,  and  pre- 
served for  us  by  Eusebius,  has  been,  it  is  true,  much  more  insisted 
on  :  OvTOi  CK  KOiXt'as  Trj<;  firjTpu^  avTov  dyio?  t/v  oiiov  koI 
aiKepa  ovk  cttici',  ovok  efupv^ov  t<f>ay€V'  ^vpuv  ctti  ttjv  K€(f>a\i]v 
avTOv  OVK  ave^T]'  IXaior  ovk  ijXeiil/aTO  kol  /^aXaveiti)  ovk  ixPV' 
(ruTO"   TOVTo>  /ioi'tt*   i$rjv  €i9  ra  ayia  elaitvar  ovSc  yap  epcoiv 


26  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

between  two  other  points  of  history  with  which  we 
are  somewhat  better  acquainted.  On  one  side  is 
Paul's  testimony,  which  throws  Hght  on  the  course  of 
things  previous  to  his  conversion  ;  on  the  other,  from 
what  we  know  of  the  Hfe  and  teaching  of  Jesus  we 
can  infer,  with  a  tolerable  degree  of  certainty,  the 
position  of  the  disciples  immediately  after  His  de- 
parture. Thus  two  luminous  rays  from  opposite 
points  focus  themselves  on  this  obscure  interval,  and 

i(fi6peL  dWa  crtVSova?,  koI  /aoi'o?  (.l(Tqp)(€To  €l<:  tuv  vaor,  k.t.A.., 
//.  E.  ii.  23.  What  is  there  in  this  tradition  or  legend  but  a  purely 
ideal  portrait  ?  Its  elements  are  derived,  not  from  popular 
tradition,  but  directly  from  the  Old  Testament.  They  are  made 
up  of  the  vows  of  the  Nazarite,  the  customs  of  the  Pharisees, 
or  perhaps  the  Essenes,  and  the  prerogatives  of  the  High 
Priest :  comp.  Num.  vi.  3,  etc.,  and  Lev;  vi.  3,  in  the  Septuagint. 
The  writer  did  not  himself  believe  that  James  had  ever  been 
High  Priest,  or  worn  a  linen  robe,  or  had  sole  right  of  entrance 
to  the  temple^ — a  fact  sufficiently  proving  that  his  intention  was 
to  draw  an  ideal  portrait.  And  when,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
says  that  James  was  sanctified  from  his  mother's  womb,  and 
drank  neither  wine  nor  strong  drink,  and  that  no  razor  ever 
touched  his  head,  he  was  evidently  thinking  of  the  birth  of 
John  the  Baptist  (Luke  i.  15),  or  of  Samson  (Judges  xiii.  4). 
Abstinence  from  meat,  from  ointment  and  the  bath,  was  still 
a  feature  of  Jewish  sanctity,  and  distinguished  the  Jewish  fast, 
in  the  days  of  Jesus  (Matt.  vi.  17).  To  the  imagination  of  the 
second  century,  this  ascetic  and  Levitical  righteousness  seemed 
the  highest  ideal  of  piety  ;  and  the  writer  therefore  wished  to 
represent  the  life  of  James  as  that  of  a  Nazarite  and  perpetual 
priest.  Since  James  was  not  High  Priest,  is  it  any  more  certain 
that  he  was  an  ascetic  ?  The  epistlfe  which  bears  his  name 
gives  quite  a  different  idea  of  him.  Instead  of  commending 
legal  sanctity,  it  rather  opposes  it  (i.  27).  In  place  of  the  pre- 
judices of  the  Levite  or  Nazarite,  he  gives  us  reminiscences  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Moreover,  the  categorical  state- 
ment of  Paul  (I  Cor.  ix.  5)  authorizes  us  to  believe  that  James, 


THE  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY.        27 

they  seem  to  us  to  set  it  in  a  fairly  vivid  light.  Let  us 
first,  therefore,  gather  the  testimony  of  Paul,  since  this 
alone  can  furnish  a  safe  starting  point  for  our  inquiry. 
The  grand  controversy  maintained  by  Paul  against 
the  Judaizers  proves  clearly  enough  the  distinctly 
Jewish  character  of  the  primitive  Christian  com- 
munity. It  does  not  prove,  however,  that  this  com- 
munity was  a  mere  Jewish  sect,  hardly  distinguished 


like  Peter,  was  married,  which  is  hardly  consistent  with  the 
account  of  Hegesippus. 

Nor  is  James  the  only  one  who  has  been  thus  idealized.  In 
the  second  century  all  the  apostles  were  represented  as  priests, 
or  ascetics.  Thus  Clement  of  Alexandria  states  that  Matthew 
abstained  from  meat  and  lived  only  upon  vegetables  {Pcedag. 
ii.  i).  In  the  same  way  Polycrates,  in  his  letter  to  Victor, 
bishop  of  Rome,  depicts  John  with  the  attributes  of  the  High 
Priest  (05  lyei'-fjdi]  iepii«s  to  vilTaXov  Trc^opr/Kw?,  //.£".  iii.  31). 
Finally,  about  the  same  period,  we  find  a  legend  arising  which 
makes  Jesus  Himself  a  priest,  descended  from  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  as  well  as  from  that  of  Judah  {Testament  of  the  Tiuelve 
Pattiarc/is,  Levi  2  ;  Simeon  7).  On  the  origin  and  specific 
character  of  these  traditions,  see  Ritschl,  Die  Entstehung  der 
altkathoHschett  Kirche,  2nd  edition,  p.  178.  These  traditions, 
while  giving  us  very  useful  and  accurate  information  about  the 
spirit  of  the  second  century,  teach  us  nothing  whatever  about 
the  rise  of  the  Church  ;  and  they  are  amongst  the  best  proofs 
which  can  be  adduced  to  show  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
was  of  earlier  date  than  the  period  at  which  they  originated. 

In  seeking  to  ascertain  the  ideas  of  the  primitive  Christians, 
we  should  be  better  warranted  in  making  use  of  the  epistle  of 
James,  the  Apocalypse,  or  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  be- 
long to  Judcco-Christian  Christianity.  But  this  would  bring  us 
to  the  same  result  as  that  already  obtained,  only  by  a  more 
uncertain  route.  The  authors  of  these  writings  are  profoundly 
Jewish  ;  but  no  one  can  deny  that  they  have  got  beyond 
Judaism,  and  that  their  creed  already  embraced  the  specific 
principle  of  the  new  religion. 


28  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


from  that  of  the  Pharisees.  On  the  contrary,  Paul 
himself  held,  and  conveys  to  us,  a  very  different  idea 
of  it.  The  manner  in  which  he  regarded  this  society, 
both  before  and  after  his  conversion,  is  a  decisive 
proof  that  he  discerned  in  it  an  essentially  new  ele- 
ment. To  this  his  former  hatred  and  his  subsequent 
devotion  alike  testify. 

Let  us  hear  what  he  says  of  this  Church :  "You  know," 
he  writes  to  the  Galatians,  "  how  I  lived  in  Judaism. 
I  persecuted  t/ie  Church  of  God  beyond  measure,  and 
laid  it  waste ;  .  .  .  being  full  of  zeal  for  the  tra- 
ditions of  our  fathers"  (Gal.  i.  13,  14).  It  is  remark- 
able, to  begin  with,  that  Paul  never  speaks  of  his  past 
life  without  associating  as  cause  and  effect  his  zeal 
for  Judaism  and  his  hatred  of  the  Christians  :  iSicjKov 
Tijv  iKK\T}aiav...^7j\(0Tr}'i  V7rdp')(^a)v ;  comp.  Philippians 
iii.  5,  6,  Kara  vofJLOV  ^apia-aio<i,  Kara  ^rjXo^  Bimkcov  tijv 
€KK\7]aiav.  In  the  eyes  of  the  jealous  Pharisee,  it 
was  a  merit  to  persecute  this  new  enemy  of  the  faith 
of  his  fathers.  His  observation,  quickened  by  fana- 
ticism, detected  from  the  first  under  the  Jewish 
exterior  of  the  Church  that  which  so  many  modern 
critics  fail  to  recognise. 

In  the  second  place,  Paul  calls  this  primitive 
Christian  community  the  Church  of  God,  t^v  eKKkt]- 
aiav  Tov  Oeov  (Gal.  i.  1 3,  and  i  Cor.  xv.  9) ;  on  another 
occasion,  simply  a.ndf>ar  excellence,  rrjv  eKKXrjariav  (Phil, 
iii.  6)  [the  Church].  He  calls  the  first  Christians,  of 
whom  he  knew  a  great  number,  by  the  new  name 
of  ttSe\</>ot  (i  Cor.  xv.  6)  [the  brethren] ;  or  else 
"  the  saints,"  ol  dytoi(i  Cor.  xvi.  i  ;  Rom.  xv.  31).  He 
sets  them  before  the  Thessalonian  Church  as  models, 
which  he  is  glad  to  see  them  imitate.  "You,  brethren, 
became  imitators  0/  the  Churches  of  God  wJiicJi  are  in 


THE  PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY.        29 

JudcBa,  in  Christ  Jesu^:  for  you  have  sufifered  the  same 
evils  from  your  fellow  citizens  which  they  did  from 
the  Jews,  who  have  killed  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  per- 
secuted us"  (i  Thess.  ii.  14,  15).  The  recollection  of 
having  persecuted  the  Church  of  God  continued 
throughout  Paul's  life  to  be  a  cause  of  grief  and 
humiliation  to  him.  He  laments  for  it,  as  if  he  had 
persecuted  the  Lord  Himself.  On  this  account  he 
reckons  himself  last  of  the  apostles,  unworthy  even 
to  be  called  an  apostle ;  he  calls  himself  an  abortion, 
the  chief  of  sinners  (i  Cor.  xv.  8  ;   j  Tim.  i.  13-15). 

It  is  not  the  case  then  that  there  were  two  gospels, 
the  gospel  of  the  Twelve  and  the  Pauline  gospel, 
each  the  negation  of  the  other.  Paul  found  himself 
in  fellowship  with  the  primitive  Church.  His  faith 
rested  on  the  same  foundation.  The  legitimate 
existence  of  two  aposilesJiips,  one  appointed  for  the 
evangelization  of  the  Jew  and  the  other  for  that  of 
the  Gentile,  he  did  indeed  admit ;  but  never  of  two 
essentially  different  gospels.  He  acknowledged  but 
one  Gospel,  which  saved  equally  and  in  the  same  way 
both  Jew  and  Gentile.  "  If  any  man  preach  another, 
let  him  be  anathema"  (Rom.  i.  16  ;  Gal.  i.  7-9). 

Here  we  are  confronted  with  the  passage  in  Galatians 
ii.  7-9:  "When  they  saw  that  I  had  been  intrusted 
with  the  gospel  of  the  uncircumcision,  as  Peter  with 
the  gospel  of  the  circumcision  (He  that  wrought  in 
Peter  unto  the  apostleship  of  the  circumcision,  having 
wrought  in  me  also  for  the  evangelization  of  the 
Gentiles), — recognising,  I  say,  the  grace  that  has 
been  committed  to  me,  they  gave  me  the  right  hand 
of  fellowship."  Here,  it  is  said,  we  have  the  two 
gospels  clearly  defined  and  contrasted  with  each 
other  :    evay'^iXiov   tj";?    dKpo^v(TTia<;,   evayyiXiov  tj}^ 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


TrepcToiMij^;.  But  who  docs  not  see  that  by  these  two 
genftives  Paul  meant  to  indicate,  not  the  dogmatic 
content,  but  i/ie  tivofold  destination  of  the  Gospel  ? 
Besides,  these  words  are  clearly  explained  in  the 
succeeding  verse,  where  the  equivalent  terms  are  sub- 
stituted :  T779  irepiTOfii]^  =  ei<;  airoaroXriv  t?}?  7r€piT0fxrj<i ; 
rrj<;  aKpoPvar[a<i  =  el<i  to.  eOvq.  And,  what  is  more,  the 
apostle  ascribes  these  two  apostleships  and  the  abun- 
dant fruit  they  bore  to  one  and  the  same  act  of  God  : 
6  'yap  evep'yt'](xa<i  IliTpa)  .  .  .  Kufioi.  If  two  hostile 
and  contradictory  gospels  are  in  question,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  Paul  attributes  them  equally  to  God  as 
their  supreme  Author — a  crying  absurdity  !  We  have 
here  not  a  dogmatic  definition,  but  an  ethnographical 
delimitation  of  two  missionary  fields.  The  apostles 
were  able,  therefore,  without  any  hypocrisy  to  give 
to  each  other  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  ;  they  felt 
.themselves  to  be  standing  on  a  common  basis,  which 
was  broad  enough  to  support  them  all. 

What  was  this  common   foundation,  this  identical 
content  of  the  twofold  preaching,  which,  belonging 
equally  to  both  fields  of  labour,  for  that  very  reason 
/        may  be  regarded  as  the  primitive  Gospel  ?     Paul  has 
I        stated  it  for  us  in  the  opening  verses  of  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.     There 
he   sums   up   the   Gospel    that   he   had  preached  at 
^        Corinth.     "  I   remind  you,"  he  says,  "  of  the  gospel 
!        which    I    announced    unto   you,   that    which   also    I 
received,  wherein  ye  abide  firmly,  by  which  ye  are 
saved.     .     .     .     Among  the  chief  things  (Iv  •n-ptoTOLs;), 
I  taught  you  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  according 
to  the  Scriptures  ;  that  He  was  buried  ;  and  that  He 
was  raised  on  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures."    Then,  after  referring  to  the  different  appear- 


THE  PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY.        31 

anccs  of  the  risen  Jesus,  he  adds :  "  This  is  iv/tat  tee 
preach,  zvhetJier  it  be  I  or  they  (the  Twelve)  ;  and  this 
is  wliat you  believed"  These  last  words  apply  not  only 
to  the  appearances  recorded  above,  but  to  the  entire 
summary  of  the  apostle's  preaching  as  just  given. 

Another  passage  in  the  same  epistle,  no  less  inte- 
resting to  study,  shows  us  how  the  apostle  estimated 
the  work  that  was  being  done  by  others  alongside  with 
himself,  and  that  which  had  been  done  before  him  in 
the  Church ;  "  According  to  the  grace  of  God  which 
was  given  unto  me,  I  have  like  a  wise  architect  laid 
the  foundation,  and  another  is  building  upon  it.  Let 
each  man  take  care  how  he  builds  upon  it.  No 
other  foundation  can  be  laid  than  that  which  has 
been  already  laid, — namely,  Jesus  Christ"  (iii.  10,  11). 
So  far  from  reproaching  Peter  with  having  built  on 
a  different  foundation,  Paul  reckons  him  among  the 
number  of  those  who  were  labouring  at  God's  build- 
ing. He  neither  commends  nor  blames  him,  leaving 
to  God  the  office  of  appraising  the  work  of  each 
(iii.  22).  In  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  Paul  calls 
this  primitive  foundation  dcfieXiov  rwv  a-jroaToXxov 
(ii.  20) ;  and,  farther  on,  he  adds  that  the  mystery  of 
Christ  has  been  revealed  to  His  holy  apostles  and  pro- 
phets, as  never  in  former  ages  (iii.  5).^ 

We  see  with  what  absolute  sincerity  Paul  attached 
himself  to  the  primitive  Church.  Does  not  this 
evidence  justify  us  in  inferring  the  twofold  character, 
both  Jewish  and  Christian,  of  this  original  com- 
munity ?     Had  it  not  been  Jewish  in  its  manner  of 


'  We  are  aware  that  the  authenticity  of  these  two  last  pas- 
sages is  questioned.  But  we  only  quote  them  as  confirming 
the  previous  citation. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


life  and  its  hopes,  the  struggles  and  schisms  that 
followed  would  be  inexplicable.  But  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  had  not  in  the  midst  of  its  Judaism  held  fast 
to  the  new  principle  of  the  Gospel,  Saul  would  never 
have  left  Pharisaism  for  a  sect  which  continued  so 
much  like  it  ;  at  all  events,  he  would  not  after  his 
conversion  have  remained  in  communion  with  it. 

Between  Jesus  and  Paul,  then,  the  Church  at  Jeru- 
salem formed  a  necessary  connecting  link.  The  sub- 
sequent course  of  events  can  only  be  satisfactorily 
explained  by  the  original  alliance  existing  in  the  faith 
and  life  of  the  first  Christians  between  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  traditional  Judaism.  It  is,  in  fact,  the 
combination  of  these  two  fundamentally  hostile  prin- 
ciples which  gives  to  this  first  period  of  the  Church's 
history  its  peculiar  and  primitive  character. 

In  order  to  understand  this  unique  historical  situa- 
tion, we  must  carry  our  thoughts  back  to  the  morrow 
of  the  death  of  Jesus.  The  attitude  assumed  by  the 
disciples  toward  Judaism  was  the  consequence  and 
continuation  of  that  in  which  the  Master  Himself  had 
stood. 

Now,  the  position  of  Jesus  in  regard  to  the  national 
religion  had  a  twofold  aspect.  He  was  emphatically 
a  Jew  ;  He  sought  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  His 
life  was  entirely  confined  within  the  limits  of  Judaism. 
Nothing  is  more  remarkable  than  the  way  in  which 
He  has  succeeded  in  bringing  about,  without  any 
violence,  the  greatest  revolution  that  has  ever  taken 
place.  He  brought  into  the  world  in  His  own 
person  a  new  principle  of  religious  life.  In  pre- 
senting Himself  as  the  object  of  faith  and  love.  He 
instituted  a  new  righteousness,  and  opened  to  men 


THE  PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY.        33 

a  new  way  of  salvation.  Thus  He  supplied  another 
fulcrum  in  place  of  that  on  which  the  religious  con- 
sciousness of  His  disciples  previously  rested,  substi- 
tuting for  their  traditional  faith  an  absolute  devotion 
to  His  person.  When  He  met  with  a  tradition  of  the 
elders,  or  even  an  article  of  the  law  which  opposed 
the  application  of  the  new  principle,  He  brushed  it 
aside  with  a  sovereign  authority.  But  His  reforms 
were,  nevertheless,  as  free  from  violence  as  His  rever- 
ence and  obedience  were  from  weakness.  Jesus  never 
formally  abrogated  the  authority  of  the  law  ;  on 
the  contrary,  He  vindicated  it,  sometimes  with  great 
solemnity  :  "  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil." 
In  these  words  lies  the  secret  of  His  action.  Jesus 
loved  to  present  His  gospel  as  the  realization  of 
the  ancient  promises,  the  crown  of  earlier  revelation. 
So  that  His  disciples,  in  devoting  themselves  unre- 
servedly to  His  person  and  becoming  His  messengers, 
did  not  in  any  way  feel  that  they  were  seceding  from 
the  chosen  people.  On  the  contrary,  they  held  them- 
selves to  belong  to  Israel  now  more  truly  than  ever, 
and  with  a  better  claim  than  their  fellow  citizens 
(Acts  iii.  23). 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  revolution  not  as  yet 
effected  in  their  minds  was  nevertheless  accomplished 
as  an  objective  fact.  Calvary  made  an  irrevocable 
breach  between  the  religion  of  the  past  and  of  the 
future.  Jesus,  in  dying,  guaranteed  His  work  against 
any  unintelligent  or  timid  reaction.  From  the  outset 
He  planted  His  cross  between  Christianity  and 
Judaism  ;  and  so  often  as  His  disciples  are  tempted 
to  retrace  their  steps,  they  find  it  placed  as  an  impas- 
sable barrier  between  them  and  their  nation. 

The  cross,  in  fact,  was  the  real  motive  principle  of 

3 


U  Tji£  apostle  Paul. 


all  the  progress  which  ensued  ;  it  was  this  which  gave 
impulse  and  impetus  to  the  primitive  Church,  and 
drove  it  irresistibly  beyond  the  limits  of  Judaism. 
In  spite  of  all  their  attempts  at  conciliation,  the  cross 
was  destined  to  bring  the  apostles  into  conflicts,  ever 
renewed,  with  the  Jewish  nation  (Acts  v.  28).  Mean- 
while it  weighed  upon  their  secret  thoughts  and 
wrought  on  them  like  an  inward  goad.  They  have 
to  justify  the  cross  by  the  declarations  of  the  pro- 
phets, to  discover  the  purpose  of  God  in  this  in- 
famous punishment ;  in  short,  to  prove  its  necessity 
as  an  essential  factor  in  the  plan  of  salvation  pre- 
pared by  God  for  mankind  (Acts  iii.  17,  18  ;  viii.  31, 
etc.).  The  terminus  of  this  movement  of  thought  is 
found  in  the  theory  of  redemption  formulated  by  the 
apostle  Paul.  Thus  the  external  development  of  the 
Church  and  the  internal  progress  of  the  apostolic 
doctrine  equally  proceeded  from  the  cross  of  Jesus. 
The  apostles,  to  be  sure,  did  not  foresee  all  these 
consequences.  The  principle  of  their  faith  and  their 
loyalty  to  their  crucified  Master  were  about  to  lead 
them  whither  they  would  not.  For  a  little  while  the 
bark  which  bears  them  remains  in  harbour ;  but  the 
last  cords  are  already  severed,  the  anchor  is  lifted, 
and  from  that  moment  every  impulse,  every  motion  of 
the  waves  serves  to  carry  it  farther  from  the  ancient 
shore  of  Judaism,  to  which  it  will  never  more  return. 

That  which  seems  to  us,  more  than  anything  else, 
to  characterize  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  is  this  same 
latent  dualism,  this  tranquil  co-existence  of  Judaism 
and  Christianity  in  the  primitive  Christian  life  and 
creed.  The  union  is  sincere,  because  it  is  complete. 
It  is,  in  fact,  in  this  very  simplicity  of  hope  and  this 


THE  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY.        35 

very  behaviour  that  the  striking  originality  of  the  pic- 
ture of  early  Christianity  consists.  There  is  no  trace 
of  any  compromise  between  hostile  tendencies  ;  the 
two  streams  are  intermingled,  and  blend  in  perfect 
harmony.  No  one  feels  it  necessary  to  renounce 
Moses  in  order  to  remain  faithful  to  Jesus.  There 
is  actually  so  little  contradiction  between  the  old  and 
new  faith,  that  in  some  cases  conversion  to  the  Gospel 
awakened  a  new  zeal  for  Judaism. 

We  find  the  early  Christians  observing  the  national 
feasts  and  holidays  (Acts  ii.  i  ;  xviii.  21  [?]  ;  xx.  6,  16 ; 
Rom.  xiv.  5).  They  take  part  in  the  worship  of  the 
temple  and  the  synagogue  ;  they  pray  at  the  cus- 
tomary hours  (chaps,  ii.  46  ;  iii.  i  ;  v.  42  ;  x.  9).  They 
observe  the  fasts,  and  undergo  voluntary  abstinence, 
binding  themselves  by  special  vows  like  all  pious 
Jews  (xiii.  2;  xviii.  18  ;  xxi.  23).  They  .scrupulously 
avoid  unlawful  food,  and  all  legal  defilement  (x.  14). 
They  have  their  children  circumcised  (xv.  5  ;  xvi.  3  ; 
Gal.  V.  2).  In  short,  they  are  like  the  pious  Ananias 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Jews  at  Damascus  \avrip  evXa/37]<i'' 
Kara  tov  vofiov  (Acts  xxii.  12).  This  scrupulous  piety 
won  for  them  the  esteem  and  admiration  of  the 
people  (chap.  v.  13).^ 

The  primitive  Christians  were  Jewish  alike  in  their 
ideas  and  their  hopes.  Their  creed  w^as  still  com- 
prised in  a  single  dogma :  Jesus  is  the  Messiah.  This 
simple  proposition,  as  M.  Reuss  well  observes,  was 
not  new  in  respect  to  its  attribute,  but  only  as  regards 
its  subject.'^     Their  preaching  of  the  Gospel  strictly 

*  See  Reuss,  Histoire  de  la  thMogic  chretienne  au  Steele 
apostolique^  vol.  i.,  p.  282,  3rd  edition.     [Eng.  trans.,  i,,  249.] 

*  Reuss,  Histoire^  etc.  vol.  i.,  p.  284.     [Eng.  trans.,  i.,  251.] 


36  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


followed  the  lines  of  Messianic  tradition  (i.  7  ;  ii.  36  ; 
iii.  20).  They  awaited,  with  almost  feverish  expecta- 
tion, the  approaching  advent  of  their  Master,  and 
pictured  his  return  in  colours  and  images  wholly 
borrowed  from  Pharisaism. 

But  in  reality,  all  this  formed  only  the  outside  of 
their  life  and  creed.  The  conception  of  the  Messiah, 
when  applied  to  the  historical  person  of  Jesus,  could 
not  fail  to  undergo  a  transformation.  The  kingdom 
of  God,  which  the  apostles  invited  their  fellow 
citizens  to  enter,  was  from  the  first  divested  of  its 
political  and  terrestrial  character  ;  it  must  be  entered 
by  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  the 
Saviour  of  the  nation  becomes  thus,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  the  Saviour  of  the  individual..  Herein  lies 
the  profound  significance  of  the  miracle  of  Pentecost. 
That  day  was  the  birthday  of  the  Church,  not  because 
of  the  marvellous  success  of  Peter's  preaching,  but 
because  the  Christian  principle,  hitherto  only  existing 
objectively  and  externally  in  the  person  of  Jesus, 
passed  from  that  moment  into  the  souls  of  His 
disciples  and  there  attained  its  inward  realization. 
On  the  day  of  Pentecost  memory  became  faith.^ 

And  thus  in  the  very  midst  of  Judaism  we  see 
created  and  unfolded  a  form  of  religious  life  essen- 
tially different  from  it — the  Christian  life.  A  new 
flower  blooms  on  the  old  stem.  In  the  midst  of  the 
national  family,  the  first  Christians  felt  themselves 
brethren  in  a  peculiar  sense  ;  side  by  side  with  the 
temple    ritual,    we    find     the    more     intimate     and 

'  See  Neander's  History  of  the  Planting  and  Training  of 
the  Christian  Church  j  De  Pressensi^'s  Early  Years  of  Chris- 
tianity. 


THE  riUMITIVE   CHRISTIAN  COMMUNITY.         37 

spiritual  worship  of  the  "  upper  room."  Exhortation 
and  prayer,  baptism  in  tlic  name  of  Jesus,  the 
breaking  of  bread  in  commemoration  of  His  death, 
charity  to  the  poor — here  are  present  already  all  the 
essential  elements  of  Christian  worship. 

At  the  same  time,  by  the  natural  effect  of  discus- 
sion, the  apostles  gained  a  clearer  understanding  of 
the  new  principle  which  animated  them.  Their  faith, 
which  at  first  was  nothing  more  than  a  powerful 
sentiment  binding  them  to  Jesus,  sought  day  by  day 
to  attain  a  more  just  and  exact  definition  of  its 
object.  Feter  at  first  simply  designates  Jesus  as  a 
man  approved  of  God  (ii.  22) ;  then,  as  the  Holy  and 
Righteous  One;  as  the  Prince  and  Leader  of  life 
(iii.  14,  15).  At  last  the  new  faith  is  revealed  in  its 
full  import  in  the  courageous  declaration  of  the 
apostle:  "Jesus  is  the  stone  which  you  builders 
despised,  and  which  has  become  the  headstone  of  the 
corner.  In  none  other  is  there  salvation  :  for  there 
has  not  been  given  to  men  any  other  name  under 
heaven  by  which  they  can  be  saved"  (iv.  11,  12). 
To  the  claim  of  Judaism  to  be  the  sole  religion  is 
here  opposed  the  equal  claim  of  the  Gospel.  Conflict 
was  inevitable. 

On  both  sides,  it  is  true,  there  seem  to  have  been 
efforts  made  to  prevent  it.  The  Jewish  authorities, 
alarmed  by  their  too  easy  triumph  over  Jesus,  hesi- 
tated to  attack  His  disciples.  They  wished  to  have 
no  more  to  do  with  them  ;  the}'  warned,  and  even 
implored  them.  They  could  not  make  up  their  minds 
to  repress  them  by  violence,  and  yielded  readily  to 
the  wise  counsel  of  Gamaliel.  The  apostles,  on  their 
side,  seemed  equally  unwilling  to  precipitate  matters. 
In  their  naXve  expectation  of  soon  seeing  their  whole 


38  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


nation  converted,  they  avoided  giving  it  offence. 
If  they  recall  the  murder  of  Jesus,  they  hasten  to 
excuse  it,  on  the  ground  of  the  ignorance  of  the  per- 
petrators and  its  Divine  necessity  (iii.  13-19). 

But  the  logic  of  principles  and  events  was  to  prove 
too  strong  for  this  goodwill.  The  heads  of  the 
nation  contented  themselves  at  first  with  forbidding 
the  apostles  to  speak  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  Un- 
fortunately, this  was  the  one  point  on  which  it  was 
impossible  for  them  to  obey.  The  prohibition  led  to 
transgression  ;  and  the  transgression  in  its  turn  in- 
evitably provoked  violence.  These  first  persecutions 
stimulated  the  zeal  and  enthusiasm  of  the  disciples, 
and  braced  them  for  the  struggle  (iv.  24  ;  v.  41).  "It 
is  better  to  obey  God  than  man."  In  this  phrase 
we  hear  by  anticipation  the  farewell  of  the  apostles  to 
national  Judaism. 

So,  little  by  little,  Christianity  and  Judaism  came 
to  exhibit  the  hostility  latent  in  their  principles.  Let 
a  man  now  arise  bold  enough  to  disentangle  the  two 
systems  and  set  them  in  antithesis,  and  we  shall  see 
the  great  conflict  begun  by  the  discourses  and  the 
death  of  Jesus  break  forth  again  as  fiercely  as  before. 
Such  a  man  was  Stephen,  deacon  and  martyr. 


CHAPTER   II. 

STEPHEN  THE  PRECURSOR  OF  PAUL. — COLLISION 
BETWEEN  THE  JEWISH  AND  THE  CHRISTIAN 
PRINCIPLE  (Acts  vi.,  vii.). 

THE  first  verses  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  Acts 
indicate  a  great  change  in  the  internal  con- 
dition of  the  primitive  Church.  At  the  same  time,  we 
find  ourselves  apparently  on  firmer  historical  ground. 
The  early  days  of  pure  enthusiasm  are  succeeded  by 
a  period  of  bitter  divisions  within,  and  fierce  conflicts 
without. 

The  growth  of  the  Church  destroyed  its  internal 
harmony.  Opposing  tendencies  were  aroused  and 
displayed  themselves  in  its  midst.  "  In  those  days, 
when  the  number  of  the  disciples  was  increasing, 
there  arose  a  loud  murmuring  of  the  Hellenists 
against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows  were 
neglected  in  the  distribution  of  relief"  (vi.  i).  Is  not 
this  an  undeniable  proof  that  the  Judaic  spirit,  with 
its  prejudice  and  intolerance,  survived  in  the  Chris- 
tian community?  and  may  we  not  foresee  already 
something  of  the  more  ardent  and  serious  struggles  to 
which  this  spirit  was  afterwards  to  give  rise  ?  This 
dissension  was  appeased,  however,  by  a  triumph  of  the 
primitive  spirit  of  charity.  The  seven  deacons  who  ^ 
were  appointed  all  bear  Greek  names.  Probably  they  , 
were  selected,  by  preference,  from  the  aggrieved  party,    ' 

39 


40  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

in  order  to  prevent  further  complaints.  Among  these 
deacons,  Stephen  was  designated  first,  being  a  man 
full  of  faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  favour  and 
influence  among  the  people.  He  had  apprehended 
the  spiritual  character  of  the  Gospel  better  than  the 
apostles  themselves,  and  surrendered  himself  with 
absolute  faith  to  the  new  principle.^ 

He  soon  found  himself  in  the  forefront  of  the 
struggle  that  was  beginning  against  Judaism,  carried 
onwards  by  the  boldness  of  his  views  quite  as  much 
as  by  his  zeal.  To  this  struggle  his  intervention  gave 
^a  new  turn.  The  apostles  had  remained  on  the 
[  defensive  in  their  preaching  of  Jesus  ;  Stephen  broke 
through  this  reserve,  and  boldly  assumed  the  offensive. 
In  his  public  discussions  he  laid  bare  the  materialistic 
principle  of  Pharisaic  piety  ;  he  pointed  out  with 
unsparing  plainness  the  secret  cause  of  that  invincible 
obstinacy  with  which  the  Jews  had  always  resisted 


'  We  consider  that  it  was  in  this  faith  and  holy  inspiration — 
that  is,  in  a  clearer  comprehension  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus — rather 
than  in  his  Hellenism,  that  the  loftiness,  courage,  and  spiritua- 
lity of  Stephen's  thought  had  their  source.  We  believe,  contrary 
to  the  received  opinion,  that  it  is  attributing  undeserved  honour 
to  the  Hellenist  Jews  to  regard  them  as  a  spiritual  and  liberally 
minded  party.  They  were  treated  somewhat  with  contempt, 
because  their  origin  appeared  less  pure ;  but  it  is  probable,  as 
in  all  analogous  cases,  that  they  cherished  on  this  account  a 
more  bigoted  temper  and  a  sterner  zeal,  in  order  to  atone  for 
their  foreign  taint  and  efface  the  recollection  of  it.  They  attached 
themselves  to  the  Pharisaic  party  much  more  than  to  that  of 
the  Sadducees.  It  was  the  Hellenists,  indeed,  who  accused  and 
stoned  Stephen.  Saul  was  a  Hellenist.  It  was  Hellenist  Jews, 
again,  who  wished  to  kill  Paul  after  his  conversion  (ix.  29). 
And  finally,  the  men  who,  on  recognising  Paul  in  the  temple, 
denounced  and  sought  to  slay  him  were  Jews  from  Asia  (xxi.  27). 


STEPHEN  THE  PRECURSOR   OF  PAUL.  41 

the  word  of  God.  His  denunciations  of  their  religious 
formalism  recalled  sometimes  those  accents  of  the 
Master  which  used  to  excite  the  Pharisees  to  fury. 
This  fury  again  awoke.  The  capital  charge  brought 
against  Jesus  was  renewed  against  Stephen  ;  false 
witnesses  again  repeated  the  accusation,  "  We  have 
heard  this>  man  speak  against  the  holy  place  and 
against  the  law.  We  have  heard  him  say  that  this 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  will  destroy  the  temple,  and  change 
the  customs  that  Moses  gave  us  "  (vi.  13,  14). 

How  far  was  this  charge  true  or  false?  What 
was  the  real  idea  of  Stephen  ?  We  can  only  learn 
it  through  his  discourse.  This  speech  is  divided  into 
two  parts,  of  very  unequal  length — one  historical,  and 
the  other  personal.  The  fifty-first  verse  forms  the 
somewhat  abrupt  transition  from  the  one  to  the  other. 
At  first  sight,  one  does  not  readily  perceive  the  con- 
nexion between  this  long  defence  and  the  accusation ; 
and  some  interpreters,  misled  by  this,  have  concluded 
that  we  have  not  here  Stephen's  actual  discourse,  but 
a  free  historical  composition  which  the  author  of  the 
Acts  has  substituted  for  it.  That  is  only  a  superficial 
judgment.  When  we  study  the  address  more  closely 
and  grasp  its  main  idea,  we  find  it  impossible  to 
imagine  anything  which  could  have  met  the  accu- 
sation more  directly  or  gone  more  thoroughly  to  the 
root  of  the  matter,  or  any  defence,  on  the  whole,  more 
apt  and  eloquent. 

What,  then,  is  its  pervading  thought?  This  de- 
clares itself  in  that  same  fifty-first  verse  which  marks 
the  transition  from  the  first  to  the  second  part  of  the 
address.  "  You  stiff-necked  men,"  cries  Stephen,  "  un- 
circumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  will  you  always  resist 
the  Holy  Ghost  ? "     This  vehement  apostrophe,  with 


42  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

which  his  long  historical  statement  concludes,  com- 
pletely sums  it  up.  Stephen,  in  fact,  endeavours  in 
traversing  the  course  of  Israel's  history  to  point  out 
and  illustrate  the  perpetual  conflict  that  existed  be- 
tween the  unfailing  mercy  of  God  and  the  stubborn, 
carnal  obstinacy  of  the  people.  This  tragic  antithesis 
is  the  one  subject  of  his  discourse.  He  seems,  at  the 
first  glance,  to  forget  the  accusation  laid  against  him  ; 
but  in  reality  he  does  not  lose  sight  of  it  for  a  moment. 
It  is  the  constant  goal  to  which  every  word  is  directed. 
In  rehearsing  the  conflicts  of  the  past  he  is  well 
aware,  and  makes  it  very  evident,  that  he  is  depicting 
by  anticipation  the  struggle  in  which  at  the  present 
moment  he  is  himself  involved.  Besides,  Stephen 
had  no  other  means  of  making  himself  listened  to  and 
understood.  To  the  High  Priest's  question.  Is  it  true 
what  these  men  say  ?  he  could  not  answer  directly 
either  Yes  or  No.  He  could  not  answer  in  the  aflfir- 
mative ;  for  in  his  eyes  the  Gospel  was  not  the  de- 
struction of  the  law  and  prophets,  but  their  fulfilment. 
To  answer]  No,  would  have  been  to  deny  his  cause, 
and  to  save  himself  by  means  of  an  equivocation.  He 
must  explain,  in  order  to  defend  himself;  and  what 
better  explanation  can  he  offer,  than  to  make  his  case 
parallel  with  that  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  ?  On  a 
similar  occasion,  Jesus  had  made  much  the  same  reply. 
Stephen's  discourse  is  the  complement  and  develop- 
ment of  the  parable  of  the  Vineyard.  The  orator  was 
obliged  to  throw  his  speech  into  this  historical  form. 
By  doing  so  he  gave  the  rage  of  his  opponents  time 
to  subside,  and  meanwhile  secured  the  means  of 
showing  clearly  the  true  cause  of  their  hatred.  The 
great  epochs  in  the  history  of  the  Jewish  people  fur- 
nish the  main  divisions  of  his  discourse. 


STEPHEN  THE   PRECURSOR   OF  PAUL.  43 

The  first  extends  from  Abraham  to  Moses  (vii. 
2-19).  The  nation  does  not  exist  as  yet  ;  but  before 
its  birth  it  was  the  object  of  Divine  favour  ;  for  to  it, 
in  truth,  the  promises  given  to  the  patriarchs  were 
made  (vers.  4,  5,  7). 

The  second  epoch  Hes  between  Moses  and  David. 
In  referring  to  the  first  period,  the  orator  has  extolled 
the  goodness  of  God  ;  in  describing  the  second,  he 
endeavours  to  depict  with  equal  force  the  ingratitude 
and  carnal  disposition  of  the  people.  This  period 
becomes  typical.  In  Moses  the  deliverer  (XvrpcoTT^?), 
Stephen  enables  us  to  recognise  the  image  of  a  far 
greater  Deliverer.  His  unworthj-  reception,  the  oppo- 
sition he  met  with  and  the  incredulity  with  which  his 
word  was  received,  are  set  forth  in  such  terms  that 
the  history  of  Moses,  by  an  easy  transition,  becomes 
the  history  of  Jesus  acted  out  beforehand  (ver.  35). 

The  third  period  comprises  the  times  of  David  and 
Solomon.  Stephen  breaks  off  at  the  building  of  the 
temple.  He  does  not,  as  some  have  thought,  censure 
the  very  idea  of  such  an  undertaking  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, he  sees  in  it  a  distinct  fulfilment  of  God's 
original  promise  made  to  Abraham  :  "  They  shall 
worship  Me  in  this  place  "  (ver.  7). 

He  saw  fit  to  confine  his  historical  exposition  be- 
tween these  two  events — the  prophecy,  and  its  fulfil- 
ment. In  vain  the  nation  displayed  its  ingratitude. 
God  remained  faithful,  and  the  temple  was  built.  But 
alas  !  this  blessing  produced  no  better  result  than 
the  rest.  The  carnal  disposition  of  the  people  spoilt 
it,  and  turned  it  into  a  cause  of  destruction.  The 
very  temple  where  God  should  have  been  worshipped 
in  spirit  and  in  truth,  became  the  centre  and  support 
of  a  bigoted  and  hypocritical  piety.    Instead  of  reveal- 


44  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

ing  to  all  mankind  the  one  universal  God,  who  made 
heaven  and  earth,  it  only  served  to  limit  and  conceal 
the  majesty  of  Jehovah.  This,  we  take  it,  is  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  passage,  the  most  important  in 
the  whole  discourse,  in  which  Stephen  shows  what  he 
really  thought  about  the  temple:  "David  found  favour 
before  God,  and  asked  that  he  might  build  a  taber- 
nacle for  the  God  of  Jacob  ;  and  Solomon  built  Him 
a  house.  But  the  Most  High  dwells  not  in  houses 
made  by  human  hands,  according  to  the  prophet's 
word  :  Heaven  is  My  throne,  earth  the  footstool  of 
My  feet ;  what  house  will  you  build  Me  ?  saith  the 
Lord  ;  or  what  should  be  the  place  of  My  rest?  Is 
it  not  My  hand  that  has  made  all  these  things  ? " 
(vers.  46-50.) 

Thus  had  Stephen  advanced  slowly,  but  always  in 
a  straight  line,  to  meet  the  charge  laid  against  him. 
He  now  confronts  and  grapples  with  it  directly  and 
without  hesitation.  His  answer  is  deduced  from  this 
prolonged  narrative  with  overwhelming  effect.  It  is 
an  old  contention,  this  in  which  he  is  engaged — 
the  contention  between  God  and  His  people.  Is  it 
surprising  that  the  people  to-day  show  no  more 
intelligence,  no  better  disposition  than  they  had  done 
with  regard  to  Moses,  or  the  prophets,  or  Jesus  ? 
"  Which  of  the  prophets  did  not  your  fathers  perse- 
cute ?  They  killed  those  who  foretold  of  the  coming 
of  the  Righteous  One ;  and  when  this  Righteous  One 
appeared,  you  became  His  betrayers  and  murderers  ! 
You  possessed  the  law,  .  .  .  and  you  did  not  keep  it." 
In  other  words.  You  are  just  like  your  fathers : 
0)9  ol  7raT€p€<i  vjjLtov  Kal  vfM€i<i  (vers.  51-53).  At  this 
point  the  position  appears  to  be  changed  :  the  accused 
has  become  judge  of  his  accusers.     But  at  the  same 


STEPHEN  THE  PRECURSOR   OF  PAUL.  45 


time  he  has  anticipated,  in  his  reading  of  the  history 
of  the  past,  the  fate  which  awaits  himself  and  the 
sentence  about  to  fall  upon  him. 

Stephen,  in  truth,  did  not  for  one  moment  deceive 
himself.  He  knew  his  adversaries  well.  He  has  no 
hope  of  either  convincing  or  softening  them.  This 
sense  of  the  inevitable  is  manifest  from  the  first.  He 
docs  not  merely  point  out  a  few  passing  errors  or 
accidental  failings ;  his  object  was  to  denounce  a 
congenital  vice,  inherent  in  the  very  character  of  his 
people  and  persisting  through  their  entire  history, — 
a  carnal  disposition,  insensible  alike  to  chastisement 
and  grace,  and  which  had  borne  the  same  fruit  in 
every  age.  Its  present  obstinacy,  therefore,  was  no 
matter  for  surprise.  Such  a  people  could  not  deny 
its  nature.  This  was  a  radical  condemnation  of 
Judaism,  such  as  the  Pharisees  had  not  heard  since 
the  days  of  Jesus.  Stephen  only  discloses  this  view 
by  degrees.  At  first,  he  keeps  it  back  and  holds  his 
audience  in  suspense  ;  but  as  he  goes  on,  his  purpose 
grows  clearer,  and  at  each  new  stage  of  the  history  he 
expresses  himself  more  pointedly  and  plainly.  His 
hearers  begin  to  murmur  and  grow  excited  ;  Stephen 
in  slow  and  unrelenting  tones  unfolds  before  them 
this  humiliating  history,  in  which  all  the  time  they 
could  recognise  their  own  likeness.  When  at  last  he 
has  finished,  and  when,  as  he  perceives,  caution  could 
no  longer  serve  him,  he  launches  forth  his  whole 
meaning  in  the  apostrophe,  "Ye  stifif-necked  and 
uncircumcised,"  etc.  Then  the  rage  of  his  adversaries 
bursts  out  in  turn,  and  gnashing  their  teeth  they 
rush  upon  him.  But  they  interrupted  him  too  late. 
Stephen  has  spoken.  He  yields  himself  to  their  fury ; 
and  his  martyrdom  completes  his  discourse. 


46  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Stephen's  heroic  death  has  diverted  attention  from 
the  depth  and  force  which  characterize  his  mind.  He 
left  Peter  and  the  heroes  of  Pentecost  far  behind  him. 
He  compelled  Judaism  and  Christianity  to  assume 
a  sharper  definition,  to  affirm  their  several  principles 
more  clearly,  and  to  separate.  The  negation  of 
Jewish  privileges,  the  right  of  all  men  to  share  in  the 
kingdom  of  God,  the  universal  and  spiritual  character 
of  Christianity,  are  the  more  immediate  deductions 
following  from  his  discourse.  The  drama  in  which  he 
perished  seems  to  have  been  the  sequel  and  repetition 
of  that  which  cost  the  Saviour's  life.  He  continued 
the  work  of  Jesus,  and  prepared  the  way  for  that  of 
the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  Paul  must  have  heard 
his  address,  and  in  after  days  would  often  call  it  to 
mind,  when  experiencing  painfully  in  his  turn  the 
invincible  unbelief  of  his  people.  What  has  he  done 
more  in  the  ninth  and  tenth  chapters  of  his  epistle  to 
the  Romans  than  formulate  dogmatically  that  decree 
of  reprobation,  which  we  find  in  Stephen's  discourse 
set  forth  under  the  garb  of  history  ? 


CHAPTER   III. 

PAUL'S   CONVERSION. — TRIUMPH   OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 
OVER   THE   JEWISH   PRINCIPLE  (Acts  ix.  4-22). 

IT  was  in  the  breast  of  Saul  that  the  violent  conflict 
raised  by  Stephen  was  decided,  issuing  in  the 
triumph  of  the  Christian  principle.  But  the  signifi- 
cance of  his  conversion  can  only  be  understood  when 
his  Pharisaism  has  first  been  clearly  defined. 

I.  Saul's  Antecedents. 

Saul  was  a  Hellenistic  Jew,  born  at  Tarsus  in 
Cilicia.  The  fact  that  he  was  born  at  this  brilliant 
centre  of  Greek  civilization  has  often  been  made  too 
much  of  The  influence  of  Greece  upon  the  develop- 
ment of  his  mind  seems  to  have  amounted  to  nothing. 
The  two  or  three  quotations  from  Greek  poets  to  be 
found  in  his  epistles  and  discourses  (Acts  xvii.  28  ; 
I  Cor.  XV.  ^^  ;  Tit.  i.  12)  are  lines  which  had  become 
proverbial,  and  which  Paul  may  frequently  have 
heard  quoted  in  pagan  society.  There  is  a  notable 
resemblance  between  his  style  of  writing  and  that  of 
Thucydides  ;  but  it  only  proves  the  natural  affinity  of 
their  genius.  Paul  did  not  learn  his  dialectics  in  the 
schools  of  the  sophists  or  rhetoricians  ;  it  has  much 
more  in  common  with  that  of  the  Talmud  and  the 


48  THE  APOSTLE  PAl-L.^ 


rabbis  than  of  Plato  or  Aristotle.  Though  he  wrote 
in  Greek,  he  thought  in  Aramaic  ;  he  seems  to  have 
borrowed  from  Greece  nothing  but  his  vocabulary. 
Out  of  these  external  elements  he  has  created  a 
language  of  his  own,  vehement  and  original  like 
his  genius.  As  for  the  universalism  of  his  Christian 
belief,  that  was  due  to  anything  rather  than  his 
Hellenistic  origin.  As  we  shall  see  afterwards,  it  is 
not  the  citizen  of  Tarsus,  but  the  Pharisee  of  Jeru- 
salem that  accounts  for  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 

Paul  himself  has  been  careful  in  his  epistles  to  demon- 
strate the  purity  of  his  Hebrew  descent,  and  the  strict- 
ness of  his  Judaism.  Note  the  significant  gradation  he 
makes  out  in  Philippians  iii.  4-6,  when  enumerating 
his  advantages  according  to  the  flesh :  Circumcised 
the  eighth  day,  he  belongs  to  the  family  of  Abraham ; 
in  this  family,  he  belongs  specifically  to  the  race  of 
Israel  ;  within  this  race,  he  has  sprung  from  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin — that  is,  from  the  tribe  which  united 
with  Judah  after  the  separation  to  form  the  kingdom 
in  which  the  great  religious  traditions  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  maintained  in  their  purity  and 
vigour.  Finally,  among  the  descendants  of  these  two 
Jewish  tribes,  he  belonged  to  the  sect  of  the  Pharisees, 
the  strictest  and  most  loyal  of  Jews  ;  and  in  its 
midst  he  was  further  distinguished  by  his  remark- 
able proficiency,  and  his  persecuting  zeal  (Gal.  i.  13). 

We  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that,  though  he 
was  born  at  Tarsus,  Paul  was  from  tender  infancy 
brought  up  at  Jerusalem,  where  he  had  a  married 
sister  (Acts  xxiii.  16).  So  we  may  conclude  from  a 
passage  in  Acts  xxii.  3,  which  we  translate  as  follows  : 
"  I  am  a  Jew,  born  at  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  but  nourished 
and  brought  up  in  this  city,  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel, 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION.  49 


and  carefully  instructed  in  the  law  of  my  fathers."  ^ 
His  parents,  intending  him  to  be  a  rabbi,  had  no 
doubt  placed  him  at  the  school  of  the  illustrious 
Pharisaic  doctor,  who  is  still  counted  among  the 
highest  authorities  of  the  Mishna.  There  Saul  re- 
ceived the  scholastic  training  of  a  rabbi,  and  exercised 
himself  for  years  in  the  subtle  dialectics  and  the  in- 
genious and  refined  hermeneutics  which  characterized 
the  rabbinical  teaching.  This  mode  of  teaching  and 
discussion  had  already  been  determined  and  formu- 
lated by  Hillel  ;  and  we  know  what  marked  traces  it 
has  left  on  Paul's  great  epistles." 

It  is,  however,  the  substance  rather  than  the  form  of 
Paul's  rabbinical  teaching  which  'we  are  most  con- 
cerned to  understand.    Paul,  on  becoming  a  Christian, 

*  In  this  passage  the  words  eV  ttj  ttoAei  tuitt/  must  mean 
Jerusalem,  and  not  Tarsus.  Paul  was  not  only  instructed, 
7r€7rat5ev/ieVos,  but  nourished  and  brought  up  from  earliest  child- 
hood at  Jerusalem,  di-aTt^pa/i/xcVos.  This  disposes  of  all  the 
conjectures  that  have  been  made  about  Paul's  Greek  education. 

-  On  Hillel  and  Gamaliel,  see  Derenbourg:  Essat  sur  I'his- 
toire  et  hi  gcographie  de  la  Palestine  d^aprls  le  Talmud,  pp. 
178,  187,  and  239.  Hillel,  of  whose  family,  along  with  tlie 
traditions  of  his  school,  Gamaliel  was  the  heir,  seems  to  have 
been,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  the  Aristotle  of  rabbinical  theology. 
He  classified  and  formulated  the  different  rules  of  its  scholastic 
reasoning.  Here  is  an  example  of  his  mode  of  discussion, 
quoted  by  M.  Derenbourg.  The  point  in  question  was  whether, 
if  the  15th  Nisan,  the  Passover,  fell  on  a  Saturday,  it  was 
lawful  to  sacrifice  the  Paschal  lamb  on  that  day.  Hillel 
answered  in  the  affirmative,  and  established  his  assertion  by 
three  reasons  :  (i)  by  an  argument  drawn  from  analogy.  The 
law  of  the  Sabbath  does  not  prevent  the  daily  sacrifice  ;  there  is 
no  more  reason  why  the  Paschal  sacrifice  should  be  forbidden. 
— (2)  By  an  argument  H  fortiori.  If  the  daily  sacrifice  was 
offered  notwithstanding  the  Sabbath,  when  its   omission  was 

4 


50  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

did  not  abandon  all  his  former  convictions  ;  for  had 
not  many  of  his  Christian  ideas  their  roots  in  his 
early  faith  ?  What  else,  in  fact,  is  his  entire  system 
of  doctrine  but  Pharisaism  transformed  and  inverted  ? 
Unfortunately,  we  have  only  very  vague  and  im- 
perfect information  about  the  doctrines  taught  in  the 
Pharisaic  schools  of  the  period.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
certain  that  the  apostle's  theology  owed  to  Judaism 
the  general  basis  on  which  it  rests.  There  is  no  need 
of  appealing  to  external  documents  of  doubtful 
authority,  in  order  to  discover  the  exact  nature  of 
this  basis.  It  will  be  enough  to  note  in  his  epistles 
the  general  ideas  which  had  their  origin  in  Judaism. 
We  shall  thus  be  able  to  trace  the  traditional  mould 
in  which  Paul's  system  of  thought  was  cast  from  the 
beginning.  His  theology  continued  to  be  Jewish  to 
a  much  greater  extent  than  has  been  commonly 
supposed. 

From  the  Old  Testament  Paul  drew  the  primary 
and  fundamental  ideas  of  his  system  :  the  ideas  of 
God,  of  revelation,  of  righteousness,  and  of  holiness. 
He  is  essentially  Jewish,  in  what  one  might  call  his 
mental  categories,  and  in  the  general  point  of  view 

not  punishable  by  extermination,  how  much  more  should  the 
Passover  be,  seeing  extermination  was  the  punishment  for  its 
omission.^ — (3)  By  an  exegetical  argument.  It  is  ordained  that 
the  act  should  be  fulfilled  at  its  appointed  time  ;  if  that  means 
in  spite  of  the  sabbath  in  the  case  of  the  daily  sacrifice,  it  must 
have  the  same  meaning  respecting  the  Passover.  Is  not  this 
■  the  very  logic  used  by  Paul  in  his  discussions?  Comp.  i  Cor. 
ix.  S-io  ;  Gal.  iii.  15  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  7  ;  Rom.  v.  12.  Beside  these 
three  kinds  of  argument  there  were  four  others,  not  less  exactly 
defined.  There  was  evidently  a  complete  organwn  taught  in 
these  schools  and  there  acquired  by  Paul,  who  mastered  and 
wielded  it  with  wonderful  effect. 


PAUL'S   CONVEKS/ON.  51 

from  which  he  considers  the  relation  of  God  to  the 
world.  The  God  of  Paul  is  the  God  of  the  old  cove- 
nant ;  He  is  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Jacob,  of  Moses 
and  the  prophets  ;  He  is  the  One,  the  jealous  God, 
the  absolute  Creator  of  the  universe,  who  manifests  in 
His  works  the  signs  of  His  divinity ;  He  is  the  one 
God,  living  and  true  (i  Cor.  viii.  4-6  ;  x.  26  ;  Rom.  i. 
20,  23  ;  I  Thess.  i.  9  ;  i  Tim.  vi.  15,  16).  This  God 
was  the  God  of  Israel  in  a  peculiar  sense,  because  He 
had  entered  into  a  special  covenant  with  them,  and 
had  given  them  the  oracles  and  promises  in  trust 
(Rom.  iii.  2  ;  ix.  4,  5).  On  this  account,  the  Old 
Testament  still  possesses  the  authority  of  a  Divine 
revelation  (i  Cor.  xv.  4  ;  Gal.  iii.  8)  ;  it  is  the  revela- 
tion of  the  holy  God,  with  whom  we  can  have  no 
peace  without  perfect  purity  of  heart.  Hence  Paul's 
lofty  conception,  at  once  moral  and  religious,  of 
SiKaioavvr),  and  the  correlative  idea  of  sin  ;  whose 
tragic  conflict  in  the  apostle's  .soul  was  the  starting 
point  of  his  whole  spiritual  development. 

Paul  regards  the  pagan  world  as  did  the  Pharisees 
of  his  day.  Paganism  is  the  kingdom  of  darkness 
(2  Cor.  vi.  14).  The  heathen  know  not  God  ;  they 
adore  the  creature  instead  of  the  Creator  (i  Thess. 
iv.  5  ;  Gal.  iv.  8).  They  were  at  once  airLaroi  and 
avofioL  (2  Cor.  vi.  14  ;  Rom.  i.  24-26  ;  i  Cor.  vi.  6). 
And  lastly,  as  opposed  to  the  Jews,  they  are  essen- 
tially ufiapToiXoC  (Gal.  ii.  15). 

It  was  to  Pharisaism,  again,  that  Paul  was  indebted 
for  his  notions  respecting  angels  and  demons. 
Ranged  in  different  orders,  the  angels  surround 
God's  throne  (Col.  i.  16  ;  Rom.  viii.  38).  They  take 
part  in  the  government  of  the  world,  and  will  accom- 
pany Christ  at  His  coming  (i   Thess.  iv.   i6).     The 


•52  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

idea  of  the  intervention  of  angels  at  the  giving  of 
the  law  on  Mount  Sinai,  BiarayeU  Bt  uyyeXcov 
(Gal.  iii.  19)/  belongs  likewise  to  the  Judaism  of  that 
day.  To  the  host  of  angels  is  opposed  that  of  the 
demons,  with  Satan  at  their  head.  It  was  he  who 
long  ago  tempted  Eve,  under  the  form  of  a  serpent 
(2  Cor.  xi.  3).  Since  then  he  has  never  ceased  his 
endeavours   to  beguile  men  into  sin  (i  Thess.  iii.  5  ; 

1  Cor.  vii.  5),  or  to  torture  them  by  the  infliction  of 
physical  pain  (i  Cor.  v.  5  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  7).  His  proper 
domain  is  heathenism  ;  and  he  is  the  real  object  of 
the  worship  of  idolaters.  He  is  the  god  of  the  present 
age,  as  opposed  to  Christ,  the  King  of  the  age  to  come 
(2  Cor.  iv.  4). 

For  Paul,  in  fact,  as  for  the  Pharisees,  the  history 
of  humanity  had  two  great  divisions :  the  existing, 
and  the  future  age  (Eph.  i.  21).  The  latter  is  to  be 
inaugurated  by  the  glorious  return  of  Christ,  of  which 
the  apostle  has  the  same  conception  as  the  other 
disciples  of  Jesus  (i  Cor.  vii.  29  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  16;  v.  2; 

2  Thess.  i.  7  ;  I  Cor.  xv.  51,  52).  The  first  period  was 
one  of  sin,  suffering,  and  death ;  the  second  will  be 
one  of  holiness  and  life.  Adam  is  the  head  of  the 
old  humanity ;  the  Messiah  is  the  head  of  the  new. 

We  know,  further,  that  the  doctrine  of  Predes. 
tination,  whose  roots  are  found  in  the  prophetic 
teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  had  been  developed 
and  formulated  in  the  Pharisaic  schools.  Here,  no 
doubt,  lay -the  origin  of  the  Pauline  predestination. 
The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  and  of  the  .last 
judgment  are  derived  from  the  same  source.     "  The 

*^  Comp.  Acts  vii.  53 ;  Josephus,  An/,  xv.  5,  3 ;  and  Deut. 
xxxiii.  2,  according  to  the  LXX. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION.  53 

Pharisees,"  Josephus  tells  us,  "  think  that  everything 
which  happens  has  been  decreed  beforehand  by 
destiny.  They  do  not  on  that  account  deny  the 
agency  of  the  human  will  ;  for  it  has  pleased  God 
that  the  decrees  of  destiny  and  man's  free  will  should 
coincide,  whether  in  respect  of  the  practice  of  virtue 
or  of  vice.  They  believe  that  souls  possess  an  im- 
mortal energy,  and  that  beneath  the  earth  are  rewards 
and  punishments  for  those  who  in  this  life  have  lived 
virtuously  or  otherwise  ;  that  the  souls  of  the  latter 
shall  be  imprisoned  there  for  ever,  while  the  rest  shall 
speedily  be  restored  to  life."  ^ 

In  the  last  place,  is  it  not  to  the  rabbinical  theology 
that  Paul  is  indebted  for  his  anthropological  views  ? 
He  did  not  invent  his  division  of  human  nature 
into  <ydp^,  "^v^i],  irvevfia  ;  for  it  can  be  traced  back 
to  the  very  phraseology  of  the  Old  Testament.  The 
idea  of  original  sin  hereditary  in  Adam's  race  seems 
likewise  to  have  been  formulated  by  Pharisaism.  It 
was  evidently  a  complete  body  of  doctrine,  coherent 
and  systematic,  that  Paul  learned  at  the  feet  of 
Gamaliel.  This  system  he  has  greatly  modified  ;  but 
for  all  that,  one  can  easily  discern  that  the  new  edifice 
contains  much  of  the  material  of  the  old,  and  follows 
the  main  lines  of  its  construction.  The  mental  bio- 
graphy of  Paul  which  we  propose  to  relate  is  simply 
the  progressive  transformation,  under  the  influence 
of  the  Christian  principle,  of  that  Phari.saic  theology 
which  formed  the  object  of  his  original  faith. 

The  soul  of  Saul's  Pharisaic  creed  was  the  hope  of 
the  Messiah  (2  Cor.  v.  16),  a  hope  which  fired  both 


'  Wc  quote  this  passage  as  it  has  been  restored  and  trans- 
lated by  Derenbourg,  np.  a'/.,  p.  123. 


54  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

heart   and    imagination.      His   convictions  were    his 
hfe ;  he  surrendered  himself  to  them  unreservedly.    But 
V     this  ardent  piety,  these  holy  ambitions  and  deep  crav- 
/    ings,  and  the  absolute  logic  which  Paul  brought  into 
his  Pharisaism,  supplied  the  very  force  which  was  des- 
tined, in  driving  him  forwards,  to  carry  him  beyond  it. 
Let  us  observe  here  that  dominant  feature  of  Paul's 
character  which  enables  us  to  comprehend,  if  not  to 
account  for,  the  great  change  that  took  place  in  him. 
We    refer   to   Jiis  passion  for  the  absolute.      Paul's 
was,  in  fact,  a  mind  simple  and  complete — all  of  a 
piece — one  that  must  above   everything   be    logical. 
,<L,-A  ;  fje  sees  in  a  principle  all  the  consequences  that  it 
involves ;   and   detects   the  principle  in   each  of  its 
manifold  consequences.     It  was  of  no  use  to  speak  to 
him  of  degrees  of  truth,  of  accommodations  or  com- 
promises ;  he  marches  by  way  of  a  radical  negation 
to  an  absolute  affirmative.     His  intellectual  tempera- 
ment was  naturally  intolerant.     To  him   truth  and 
error,  so  far  from  being  matters  of  degree,  stand  like 
good   and   evil  in   radical   contradiction.      It    is  not 
surprising,  therefore,  that  a  mind  of  this  cast  failed  to 
acquire  the  breadth  of  view  and  moderation  of  temper 
which  distinguished   his  master  Gamaliel.      He  has 
himself  described  what  he  must  have  been  at  this 
period  of  his  life:  "You  know  my  past  life  in  Judaism ; 
I  excelled  in   zeal  most  of  my  companions  in  age, 
showing  myself  specially  zealous  for  the  traditions  of 
my  fathers  "  (Gal.  i.  13).     The  teaching  of  the  rabbis, 
the   prophetic   sayings   of  the    Old    Testament,  the 
theocratic  dreams  of  his  contemporaries — he  received 
them  all  with  eagerness  and  emphasis  ;  he  systema- 
tized and  formulated  them  into  a  complete,  coherent 
whole.     It  was  altogether  an   ideal  world  that  this 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION,  55 


Pharisee  contemplated  within  his  soul.  But  the  more 
he  clung  to  these  hopes,  the  more  he  had  to  suffer 
from  the  existing  state  of  things.  How  melancholy- 
was  the  contrast  between  his  radiant  inward  vision 
and  the  sorrowful  state  of  his  people  around  him  ! 
And  this  contradiction  had  no  possible  solution,  from 
the  Pharisaic  point  of  view.  The  future  appeared 
even  more  threatening  than  the  present.  Does  not 
this  bitter  consciousness,  this  incongruity  endured 
with  so  much  impatience,  explain  Saul's  furious 
hatred  against  the  new  sect  of  Christians  ?  For  its 
scandalous  progress  was  hastening  the  inevitable 
destruction  of  Judaism. 

In  another  direction  Saul  encountered  an  equally 
hopeless  contradiction.  There  was  in  this  Pharisee 
something  still  more  absolute  than  his  intellect, 
— his  conscience.  In  vain  would  he  have  sought  to 
satisfy  it  with  a  partial  righteousness  ;  it  demanded 
nothing  less  than  perfect  holiness.  This  ideal  of  holi- 
ness was  set  up  in  the  written  law  ;  and  with  this  law 
his  conscience  entered  into  an  incessant  and  unequal 
struggle,  in  which  it  was  always  and  inevitably  worsted. 
Every  fresh  effort  resulted,  of  necessity,  in  a  more 
humiliating  defeat.  He  has  himself  described  this 
mournful  struggle  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans.  "It  was.  through  the  law  that 
I  knew  sin,  for  I  had  not  known  coveting,  except  the 
law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not  covet.  But  sin,  taking 
occasion  from  the  commandment,  wrought  in  me  all 
manner  of  coveting  ;  for  without  the  law  sin  is  dead. 
Once  on  a  time,  without  the  law,  I  was  indeed  alive  ; 
but  when  the  commandment  came,  sin  recovered  life, 
and  I  died  ;  and  the  commandment  which  had  been 
given  me  to   bring   life,  proved  a  cause  of  death" 


56  THE  AFOSTLE  PAUL. 

(Rom.  vii.  7-12).  Thus  Paul  found  the  very  power 
in  which  he  trusted  for  salvation  rise  against  him  and 
over^vhelm  him.  The  situation  was  without  escape ; 
it  could  end  only  in  despair  (Rom.  vii.  24). 

It  was  doubtless  in  the  midst  of  these  experiences 
that  Paul  encountered  Stephen.  With  our  know- 
ledge of  his  temperament,  wc  may  safely  assume  that 
he  was  one  of  those  Jews  from  Asia  and  Cilicia  who 
maintained  the  cause  of  the  temple  and  the  law 
against  the  disciple  of  Jesus  (Acts  vi.  9).  The  temp- 
tation of  breaking  a  theological  lance  with  Stephen  was 
one  he  could  not  resist  ;  he  listened  to  his  discourses, 
and  was  present  at  his  death.  Stephen's  arguments 
and  his  serene  faith  could  not  fail  to  touch  him, 
and  to  awaken  reflection.  Perhaps  it  was  then  that 
he  felt  in  his  conscience  for  the  first  time  the  goad 
of  Jesus  (Acts  xxvi.  14).  It  was  not  from  this  cause, 
however,  that  he  became  a  Christian.  Not  only  is 
it  the  case  that  Paul  never  refers  his  conversion  to 
Stephen  ;  he  forbids,  most  explicitly,  any  such  ex- 
planation by  his  solemn  declaration  that  he  was  not 
taught  by  any  man,  and  does  not  hold  his  gospel  in 
charge  from  any  man. 

Between  the  death  of  Stephen  and  Paul's  first 
preaching  of  Christianity  at  Damascus,  there  took 
place  in  his  life  that  mysterious  event  to  which  he 
attributes  his  conversion  and  apostleship,  and  of  which 
wc  must  now  ascertain  the  true  character. 

II.  The  Appearance  of  Jesus  to  Paul. 
The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  contains  three  accounts 
of  this  event — one  given  directly  by  Luke  (ix.  1-22), 
the  other  two  taken  from  the  lips  of  Paul  (xxv.  1-2 1  ; 
xxvi.  9-20). 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION.  57 


There  are  some  variations  in  the  three  narratives. 
According  to  the  account  in  the  ninth  chapter,  Paul's 
companions  heard  the  voice  which  spoke  to  him  ; 
according  to  that  in  the  twenty-second,  they  did  not. 
The  ninth  chapter  states  that  they  saw  no  one  ;  the 
two  others,  that  they  saw  at  any  rate  a  dazzling  light. 
In  the  first  account,  they  remain  standing  ;  in  the 
third,  they  fall  to  the  ground.  And,  lastly,  the  words 
which  Jesus  is  said  to  have  spoken  to  Paul,  vary  in  all 
three  reports.  What  the  Saviour  said  to  him,  accord- 
ing to  chap.  xxvi.  16,  is  in  the  twenty-second  chapter 
put  in  the  mouth  of  Ananias  (ver.  14). 

How  did  these  differences  arise  ?  Schleiermacher's 
school  tried,  for  some  time,  to  account  for  them  by 
the  variety  of  sources  from  which  the  author  drew  his 
narrative  ;  but  even  a  superficial  comparison  of  the 
three  recitals  shows  clearly  that  they  were  drawn  up 
by  the  same  hand,  and  had  one  and  the  same  origin. 
There  is  therefore  no  occasion  to  inquire,  as  has  some- 
times been  done,  which  is  the  most  accurate. 

Could  these  differences  have  had  a  dogmatic  reason? 
Did  they  serve  to  express  in  each  instance  some 
special  aim  pursued  by  the  author  ?  So  thought 
Baur.  In  the  first  account,  he  says,  the  historian, 
narrating  the  event  from  an  objective  point  of  view, 
lays  stress  upon  the  external  circumstances  of  the 
event  in  order  to  prove  its  absolute  reality.  The 
two  other  accounts,  put  in  the  mouth  of  Paul,  are 
from  a  more  subjective  point  of  view.^  But  of  what 
value  is  this  distinction  ?  Was  Paul,  when  speaking 
before  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  or  before  Agrippa,  less 
concerned  than  Luke  to  prove  the  substantial  reality 

'  Baur,  Paidtis,  2nd  cd.,  pp.  72,  j'^.     [Eng.  trans.,  i.,  65,  66.] 


58  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

of  this  fact  ?  Were  this  explanation  as  legitimate  as 
it  is  arbitrary,  it  would  still  in  reality  explain  nothing. 
The  first  account,  it  is  said,  dwelling  on  the  objective 
reality  of  the  miracle,  makes  out  that  Paul's  com- 
panions heard  the  heavenly  voice.  But  why  did  not 
Luke  add  that  they  saw  the  light,  as  appears  in  the 
second  account?  and  that  instead  of  standing  they 
fell  to  the  ground,  as  in  the  third  ?  Are  not  these 
two  latter  circumstances  as  appropriate  as  the  first 
to  prove  the  external  reality  of  the  vision  ?  or  could 
it  be  said  that  they  better  accord  with  the  subjective 
point  of  view  of  the  later  accounts,  than  with  the 
objective  standpoint  of  the  first  ? 

M.  Zeller,  unable  to  accept  this  explanation,  offers 
us  another.  According  to  him,  the  author  has  been 
guided  by  a  literary  caprice,  not  by  any  dogmatic 
purpose.  He  is  indifferent  to  historical  accuracy 
and  careless  of  self-contradiction  ;  his  discrepancies 
are  such  as  to  show  that  pious  imagination  played 
a  leading  part  in  the  composition  of  his  narrative. 
But  are  we  to  admit  that  our  author  has  modified  his 
first  account  with  the  sole  purpose  of  variety,  or  that 
in  order  to  avoid  monotony,  he  went  to  the  length  of 
contradicting  himself? 

Can  it  be  correct  to  assert,  in  the  face  of  the  con- 
trary evidence  of  his  prologue,  that  the  author  of  the 
Third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  cared 
nothing  for  historical  truth  ?  Do  we  not  find  him 
scrupulously  anxious  about  accuracy,  always  trying 
to  trace  things  to  their  beginning,  to  get  at  the 
original  witnesses,  and  to  explain  the  facts  in  their 
true  origin  and  connexion  ?  Supposing  he  is  some- 
times in  error,  has  he  not  succeeded  in  making 
certain  parts  of  his  work  pass  for^  the  journal  of  an 


PAUrS  CONVERSION.  59 


actual  companion  of  the  apostle  Paul  ?  Can  wc 
fairly  accuse  the  man  who  wrote  the  last  chapters 
of  the  Acts  of  indulging  an  arbitrary  fancy  ? 

These  divergences  are  absolutely  .inexplicable  on 
any  hypothesis  which  assumes  that  the  author  was 
aware  of  them,  and  designed  them  to  serve  some 
doctrinal  or  literary  purpose.  It  is  obvious  to  any 
unprejudiced  mind  that  they  were  undesigned,  and  that 
they  entirely  escaped  the  writer's  notice.  They  are 
discrepancies  of  precisely  the  sort  that  one  always 
finds  existing  in  the  most  faithful  repetitions  of  the 
same  narrative.  Their  explanation  lies  in  their  very 
triviality.  They  cannot  in  any  way  affect  the  reality 
of  the  event  in  question.  They  arise  at  certain  ex- 
treme points  belonging  to  the  mere  circumference  of 
the  narrative.  They  do  not  even  belong  to  the  cir- 
cumstances accompanying  the  miracle,  but  only  to 
the  subjective  impressions  made  by  them  upon  Paul's 
companions.  On  this  point  the  record  was  liable  to 
much  more  variation,  as  these  impressions  could  not 
have  been  the  same  in  all  cases,  nor  described  by  all 
with  the  same  exactitude. 

To  draw  from  these  discrepancies  an  argument 
against  the  historical  character  of  the  narrative  seems 
to  us  a  forced  and  arbitrary  proceeding.  If  they 
were  perfectly  reconcilable,  or  even  if  they  had  never 
existed,  those  who  will  not  admit  the  miracle  would 
just  as  decisively  reject  the  testimony  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  As  Zeller  frankly  acknowledges,  their 
denial  of  the  miraculous  rests  on  a  philosophical 
theory,  the  discussion  of  which  lies  outside  the  scope 
of  historical  research.^ 

'  Zeller,  Die  Apostelgeschichie^  p.  197.     [Eng.  trans.,  i.,  291.] 


6o  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

For  our  part,  we  cannot  set  aside  this  triple  record 
quite  so  easily.  We  find  it  repeated  at  the  end  of 
the  book,  in  that  fragment  which  in  the  judgment 
of  the  majority  of  critics  is  the  authentic  testimony 
of  a  friend  of  the  apostle.  This  being  so,  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  that  Luke's  narrative  was  derived  from 
the  testimony  of  Paul  himself;  and  it  only  remains 
to  ascertain  how  far  it  is  confirmed  by  the  apostle's 
statements  in  his  own  epistles. 

It  is  a  point  of  the  utmost  importance  to  observe 
that  Paul  knows  absolutely  nothing  of  any  progressive 
stages  or  gradual  process  in  his  conversion  to  the 
Gospel.  He  looked  back  to  it  throughout  his  life  as 
a  sudden,  overwhelming  event,  which  surprised  him 
in  the  full  tide  of  his  Judaic  career  and  drove  him,  in 
spite  of  himself,  into  a  new  channel.  He  was  van- 
quished and  subdued  by  main  force  (Phil.  iii.  12). 
He  is  a  conquered  rebel,  whom  God  leads  in  triumph 
in  face  of  the  world  (2  Cor.  ii.  14).  If  he  preaches 
the  Gospel,  he  cannot  make  any  boast  of  doing  .so; 
he  was  compelled  to  preach  it,  under  a  higher  necessity 
which  he  had  no  power  to  resist.  There  he  stands, 
— a  slave  in  chains!  (i  Cor.  ix.  15-18.) 

Independently  of  this  general  impression,  Paul 
makes  three  express  statements  on  the  subject,  which 
we  must  consider  with  close  attention. 

The  first  of  the.se  passages,  where  Paul  undoubtedly 
is  referring  to  his  conversion,  is  Galatians  i.  12-17. 
He  only  describes  it  there  as  an  inward  experience. 
One  day  it  pleased  God,  who  had  set  him  apart  from 
his  mother's  womb,  to  reveal  His  Son  in  him,  in  order 
that  he  might  go  and  preach  Him  to  the  heathen. 
Paul  here  refers  his  conversion  and  his  apostleship 
to  the  same  date,  and  the  same  cause.    His  one  object 


PAUL'S  CONVERSWN.  6 1 

being  to  set  forth  the  Divine  origin  and  absolute 
independence  of  his  gospel,  he  contents  himself  with 
presenting  the  inner  phase  of  his  conversion  {airo- 
Kakvyjrai,  lov  vVov  avrov  iv  efioi),  and  makes  no 
reference  to  the  special  means  emploj'cd  by  God  to 
bring  about  in  him  this  work  of  grace.  Two  remarks 
will  show,  however,  that  the  idea  of  a  miraculous  and 
direct  revelation  from  Christ  is  none  the  less  involved 
in  this  passage.  In  the  first  place,  while  attributing 
his  conversion  to  the  grace  of  God  as  its  prime  cause, 
he  at  the  same  time  gives  as  its  proximate  and 
effectual  cause  the  personal  intervention  of  Jesus. 
This  comes  out  clearly  in  the  first  verse  of  the  epistle, 
where  the  name  of  Jesus  occurs  even  before  the  name 
of  God  ;  and  it  is  expressly  signified  in  ver.  12,  where 
Jesus  Christ  is  spoken  of,  not  as  the  object  alone  of 
Divine  revelation,  but  even  as  its  Author.^ 

Secondly,  Paul  regards  his  conversion  as  a  sudden 
occurrence,  an  event  sharply  defined  and  associated 
with  certain  external  circumstances  of  time  and  place. 
He  observes,  for  instance,  that  it  happened  in  the 
midst  of  the  war  he  was  carrying  on  against  Chris- 
tianity, overtaking  him  while  yet  a  busy  and  zealous 
persecutor.  Furthermore,  he  remembers  that  it  took 
place  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Damascus  (Gak  i.  17); 
and  that,  from  this  moment,  his  life  followed  an 
entirely  different  course.  Thus  in  three  essential 
points — the  personal  intervention  of  Jesus,  and  the 


*  Ai'  uTTOKaXvipeiii^  'Iiycrou  XpioToi'.  These  two  last  words 
form  what  the  grammarians  call  a  subjective  genitive.  They 
indicate  not  the  object,  but  the  author,  the  subject  of  the  revela- 
tion, as  is  proved  by  the  words  ira/j'  (ii'^pwTrou,  to  which  these 
are  the  antithesis. 


62  THE  AFOSTLE  PAUL. 


time  and  place  at  which  it  occurred — the  story  told  us 
in  the  Acts  is  indirectly,  but  distinctly,  confirmed. 

While  in  this  passage  of  Galatians  Paul  only  brings 
out  the  inner  aspect  of  his  conversion,  we  find  him 
dwelling  quite  as  exclusively  on  its  exterior  and 
objective  nature  in  the  two  passages  remaining  for 
our  consideration.  The  first  is  in  i  Corinthians  ix.  i  : 
"  Am  I  not  an  apostle  ?  Have  I  not  seen  the  Lord 
Jesus  ?  "  Paul  here  associates  his  apostolic  call  with 
the  manifestation  of  the  Risen  One,  shared  by  him 
with  the  other  apostles ;  he  links  them  to  each  other 
as  effect  and  cause. 

The  objective  reality  of  this  manifestation  is  still 
more  apparent  in  the  second  passage  (i  Cor.  xv.  8), 
where  Paul  puts  it  on  a  level  with  that  of  which  the 
Twelve  were  witnesses.  *'  Lastly,  and  after  all  the 
others,  Christ  appeared  to  me  also,  as  to  an  abortion." 
These  last  words  ((JDaTrepel  t(o  iKxpco/xaTi)  should  be 
noted.  Only  one  interpretation  is  possible :  that  already 
given  by  Grotius,  and  accepted  by  Baur.  An  eKrpcofia 
can  only  mean  a  foetus  torn  violently  and  prematurely 
from  the  maternal  womb  ;  as  Grotius  has  well  ex- 
pressed it,  /ioc  ideo  dicit,  quia  iion  longa  instittitione  ad 
Christianisminn  perductus  fiiit,  quo  csset  I'elut  naturalis 
partus,  sed  vi  subita,  quouiodo  immaturi  partus  ejici 
solent.  How  could  Paul  indicate  more  pointedly  than 
he  does  in  this  expression  the  objective  nature  of 
the  force  exerted  over  his  mind  at  his  conversion  ? 

Whatever  the  fact  may  be,  no  critic  will  now  deny 
that  Paul  maintained  throughout  his  life  that  he  had 
witnessed  an  external  appearance  of  the  risen  Christ. 
Baur  contends  that  the  apostle  spoke  of  the  matter 
always  with  reserve,  and  with  a  kind  of  shame,  as 
though  he  felt  instinctively  that  he  was  standing  on 


PAULS  CONVERSION.  63 

somewhat  unstable  ground.  But  what  ground  is 
there  for  this  assertion  ?  Arc  the  two  passages  in 
the  Corinthian  epistle,  in  which  the  external  side  of 
the  occurrence  is  specially  emphasized,  of  less  impor- 
tance than  that  in  Galatians,  which  chiefly  reveals  its 
internal  character  ?  If  Paul  bases  the  independence 
of  his  gospel  on  the  inward  revelation,  does  he  not 
regard  the  external  reality  as  the  source  and  proof  of 
his  apostleship  ?  Does  it  seem  as  though  he  referred 
but  timidly  to  this  manifestation  ?  We  are  bold  to 
affirm  the  contrary.  If  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians, he  makes  no  more  than  a  passing  reference 
to  the  event,  it  is  because  the  Corinthians  already 
knew  about  it.  The  apostle,  in  the  first  verses  of 
the  fifteenth  chapter,  is  only  summing  up  his  pre- 
vious teaching ;  and  among  the  leading  facts,  which 
he  dwelt  on  before  everything  else  (eV  irpioroi^),  he 
mentions  in  its  turn  this  appearance  to  him  of  the 
risen  Jesus.  Does  not  this  strongly  suggest  to  us 
that  he  must  have  already  related  the  great  event  in 
detail,  and  given  an  account  at  Corinth  similar  to 
the  one  we  have  in  the  book  of  the  Acts  ? 

Paul's  testimony,  therefore,  is  explicit  and  incon- 
trovertible. But  though  we  may  not  mistake  its 
import,  is  it  not  possible  to  diminish  its  weight  ? 
The  evidence,  it  is  said,  proves  that  Paul  believed 
in  the  reality  of  the  manifestation, — nothing  more. 
How  shall  we  educe  the  external  reality  from  this 
personal  and  subjective  conception?  Unquestionably, 
criticism  may  push  its  demands  in  this  way  to  a  point 
at  which  of  necessity  any  positive  proof  becomes  im- 
possible. This  style  of  reasoning  tends  to  nothing  less 
than  the  destruction  of  all  historical  certainty ;  for, 
in  point  of  fact,  history  depends  on  nothing  else  than 


64  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

subjective  and  individual  testimony.  This  universal 
scepticism  disarms  assailants  and  defenders  alike  ; 
on  its  terms,  negation  and  affirmation  are  equally 
unwarrantable.  But  the  evidence  of  Paul  is  a  fact ; 
as  such,  it  must  have  had  a  cause  and  demands  an 
explanation.  To  call  it  inexplicable,  as  Baur  seems 
to  do,  is  to  leave  the  door  open  for  the  supernatural. 

This  M.  Holsten,  the  boldest  and  most  faithful  of 
his  disciples,  sees  clearly  enough.  This  writer  has  in 
his  very  remarkable  work  applied  all  his  resources, 
the  closest  logic  and  most  penetrating  observation,  in 
his  attempt  to  explain  the  origin  and  natural  forma- 
tion of  this  conviction  in  the  apostle's  mind.  But  has 
his  criticism  solved  the  psychological  problem  thus 
presented  to  it?  That  it  has  done  so,  no  one,  I 
think,  will  venture  to  affirm.  M.  Holsten  himself, 
after  all  his  endeavours,  remains  in  doubt ;  he  does 
not  mean,  he  declares,  to  insist  on  the  truth  of  his 
solution,  only  on  its  possibility.  Practically,  it 
amounts  to  the  well-worn  vision-hypothesis.  Saul 
drew  from  Messianism  the  principal  features  of  the 
person  of  Christ  which  he  claims  to  have  seen.  So 
that  all  the  materials  of  his  vision  were  ready  to 
hand.  Furthermore,  he  had  a  natural  tendency  to 
ecstasy  ;  his  physiological,  no  less  than  his  spiritual 
constitution  predisposed  him  to  it.  He  had  a  ner- 
vous disposition  easily  over-wrought,  a  sanguino- 
bilious  temperament ;  and  was  very  delicate,  subject 
probably  to  epileptic  attacks  (2  Cor.  xii.  7).  That 
he  had  revelations  and  visions,  both  his  epistles  and 
the  Acts  assure  us  ;  he  spoke  with  tongues,  worked 
miracles,  had  the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  often  boasts 
of  his  spiritual  charismata  (i  Cor.  xiv.  18  ;  Gal,  ii.  2  ; 
2  Cor.  xii.  1-9).     What  was  the  appearance  of  Christ 


PAzrrs  coxvERsro.v.  6? 


at  his  conversion  but  the  first  of  these  ecstatic  visions, 
and  that  which  gave  rise  to  all  the  others  ?  ^ 

Much  might  be  said  on  the  details  of  this  argument, 
which  is  full  of  disputable  points.  The  passage  in 
2  Corinthians  xii.  1-9  supplies  its  nucleus,  and  is 
indeed  its  only  ground  of  support.  This  text,  how- 
ever, not  only  fails  to  establish  I\I.  Holsten's  theory ; 
properly  understood,  it  even  furnishes,  to  our  thinking, 
a  decisive  proof  against  it.  It  shows  that  Paul,  so  far 
from  comparing  the  manifestation  of  Christ  to  him  at 
his  conversion  with  the  visions  he  afterwards  enjoyed, 
laid  down  an  essential  difference  between  them.  At 
the  beginning  of  chapter  xii.,  Paul  proposes  to  give 
a  full  account  of  his  visions,  and  commences  with  the 
first,  which,  far  from  being  confounded  with  his  con- 
version, is  dated  at  least  five  years  later  {irpo  ircjv 
BeKareaadpcov).  He  does  violence  to  his  feelings  in 
making  known  this  private  aspect  of  his  life.  At 
the  fifth  verse  he  is  checked  by  this  repugnance,  this 
sacred  modesty,  and  suddenly  takes  quite  the  opposite 
course.  Instead  of  glorying  in  his  privileges,  he  will 
only  glory  in  his  infirmities.  The  visions  referred  to 
in  this  passage,  it  would  seem,  he  had  never  previously 
related ;  and  just  as  the  insults  of  his  enemies  were  on 
the  point  of  compelling  him  to  do  so,  he  checks  him- 
self and  again  drops  the  veil  over  these  mysteries  of 
his  spiritual  life.  His  ecstasies  and  visions  do  not 
belong  to  his  ministry,  and  are  not  for  others,  only 
for  God  and  himself:  etre  yap  i^ia-TtjfMev,  OetZ-  eWe 
a(i)(f>povovfi€v,  vp.lv  (2  Cor.  v.  13).  But  .so  far  from 
.speaking  of  his  conversion  in  the  manner  in  which 

*  Holsten,  Zutn  Evangelinm  des  Petrus  und  des  P.ut'.us. — 
Ckrtsiusvision  des  Pauliis,     Rostock,  1868. 

5 


66  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


he  speaks  of  his  visions,  Paul  shows  neither  reluctance 
nor  embarrassment  in  describing  it  ;  it  was  one  of 
the  staple  subjects  of  his  preaching.  He  spoke,  in 
short,  of  the  appearance  vouchsafed  to  him  with  the 
same  confidence  with  which  the  Twelve  related  those 
which  they  had  witnessed.  This  event  belonged  not 
to  the  sphere  of  Paul's  private  and  personal  life 
(indicated  by  the  words  elVe  i^ea~j]/jL€v),  but  to  that 
of  his  apostolic  life,  aptly  characterized  in  the  phrase 
€iT€  aQicf>povovjbLei',  vfiiv.  Paul  therefore  perceived 
an  essential  distinction  between  these  two  orders  of 
facts,  corresponding  to  that  which  existed  between 
the  two  different  spheres  of  his  life  to  which  they 
belonged. 

To  make  a  second  and  equally  decisive  observation, 
Paul  knew  that  his  visions  were  spiritual  cJiarisinata, 
effects  of  the  Spirit.  He  ascribes  them  to  the  Spirit's 
agency  as  their  true  cause  ;  whilst  he  attributes  his 
conversion  to  a  personal  and  corporeal  intervention  of 
the  risen  Jesus.  In  the  phenomena  of  his  visions  he 
was  transported,  ravished  into  ecstasy,  carried  to  the 
third  heaven  :  at  his  conversion,  Jesus  descended  to 
him  and  appeared  before  him  in  the  midst  of  his 
ordinary  life.  Moreover,  though  Paul  had  several 
visions,  he  states  that  he  had  seen  the  risen  Lord  but 
once,  and  that  this  appearance  was  the  last  made  by 
Jesus  on  earth.  In  the  consciousness  of  the  apostle 
there  must  therefore  have  existed  a  broad  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  series  of  appearances  then 
terminated  {la'^aTOv  St  Tvavroav,  I  Cor,  xv.  8),  and  the 
ecstasies  and  visions  which  lasted  throughout  the 
apostolic  age.  How  could  this  marked  distinction 
have  arisen,  except  from  the  conviction  that  the  ap- 
pearances of  the  risen  Lord  had  a  real  and  objective 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION.  67 

♦ 

character,  such  as  the  spiritual  visions  of  ecstasy  did 
not  possess. 

Finally,  if  Christ's  appearance  to  Paul  had  been  an 
inward  vision,  it  must  have  been  not  the  cause,  but 
the  product  of  his  faith.  How  could  the  mind  of 
Saul  the  Pharisee  have  created  such  a  vision,  unless 
he  were  a  Christian  already?  and  if,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  were  a  Christian  already,  how  could  he  have 
attributed  his  conversion  to  this  cause?  Such  a 
transformation  makes  the  enigma  still  more  obscure. 
M.  Holsten's  ingenious  explanations  leave  the  mystery 
just  where  it  was.^ 

These  considerations,  it  seems  to  us,  deprive  the 
vision-hypothesis  of  all  exegetical  support.  And  we 
must  not  forget  that  the  question  of  Saul's  conversion 
is  not  to  be  explained  as  a  mere  isolated  fact.  It  is 
attached  to  the  question  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  bound  up  inseparably  with  it.  The  solu- 
tion we  give  to  the  former  of  these  miracles  depends 
upon  that  of  the  latter.  Any  one  who  accepts  the 
Saviour's  resurrection  would  hardly  find  it  worth 
while  to  question  His  appearance  to  this  apostle. 
But  the  critic  who,  before  entering  on  the  question, 
is  absolutely  persuaded  that  there  is  no  God,  or  that 
if  there  is.  He  never  intervenes  in  human  histor}-, 
will  doubtless  set  aside  both  facts,  and  would  have 
recourse  to  the  vision-hypothesis,  were  it  ever  so 
improbable.  The  problem  is  thus  carried  from  the 
field  of  history  into  that  of  metaphysics,  whither  we 
must  not  pursue  it. 


*  .See   Beyschlag's  excellent   criticisms   on  the  vision-hypo- 
thesis, in  the  Stitdien  iind  Kritikeu  for  1864  and  1870. 


68  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


III.  Paul's  Conversion  and  his  Theology. 

It  only  remains  to  define  the  dogmatic  significance 
of  this  conversion.  It  was  the  generating  fact,  not 
merely  of  Paul's  apostolic  career,  but  of  his  theology 
besides.  We  find  in  this  event — latent  in  the  spiritual 
experiences  and  feelings  attending  it — all  the  great 
ideas  and  the  leading  antitheses  which  characterize 
his  doctrinal  system.  His  conversion  was  the  fruit  of 
God's  grace,  manifesting  itself  in  him  as  a  sovereign 
power  which  triumphed  over  his  individual  will. 
Paul  rose  from  the  ground  the  captive  of  that  Divine 
grace  to  which  henceforth  he  was  to  surrender  him- 
self without  reserve  or  condition  (Gal.  i.  i6).  Here 
are,  in  effect,  the  two  terms  of  that  universal  anti- 
thesis which  dominates  his  thought — God  and  man, 
grace  and  liberty,  faith  and  works. 

Embraced  within  this  wide  antithesis,  we  must 
notice  another,  which  is  still  more  conspicuous, — I 
mean  the  radical  opposition  that  displays  itself  be- 
tween law  and  faith,  between  the  Gospel  and  Judaism. 

The  other  apostles  came  to  Christ  through  the 
medium  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  prophecies. 
For  them  there  was,  as  one  might  say,  a  raised 
ladder,  which  they  climbed  step  by  step,  finding  Jesus 
at  the  summit.  In  their  eyes,  the  Law  and  the 
Gospel  had  never  been  in  opposition  ;  they  had  never 
felt  it  necessary  to  renounce  the  old  covenant  in  order 
to  enter  upon  the  new.  This  was  the  real  cause  of 
their  hesitation  and  perplexity,  when  confronted  with 
the  great  revolution  that  was  about  to  take  place. 

?But  Paul,  from  the  first,  was  in  a  totally  different 
position.  The  Gospel  and  Judaism  had  always 
seemed  to  him  absolutely  and  radically  opposed  (Phil. 


PAUL'S  CONVERSION.  69 


iii.  7,  etc.).  The  antithesis  existed  in  his  mind  before 
his  conversion  ;  and  it  remained  there.  His  conscience, 
laid  hold  of  by  God's  grace,  was  abruptly  and  vio- 
lently forced  from  one  extreme  to  the  other. 

His  adhesion  to  the  Gospel  was,  above  everything 
else,  the  complete  negation  of  his  previous  life.  For 
this  reason  it  was  that  his  doctrine  and  his  career 
only  attained  their  full  development  in  the  conflict 
between  Judaism  and  Christianity — the  old  things 
and  the  new.  The  two  terms  of  this  dualism  con- 
tinued to  be  the  poles  round  which  all  his  theology 
revolved.  This  conversion,  as  we  see,  exemplifies  in 
the  most  striking  manner  the  utter  impotence  of  the 
ancient  principle  of  justification  by  the  works  of  the 
lav.',  and  the  triumph  of  the  new  principle  of  justi- 
fication through  faith  and  the  grace  of  God  (Rom. 
vii.  24,  25).  Here  lies  the  germ  of  the  whole  Pauline 
system.  Our  task  will  be  to  trace  its  progressive 
development  during  the  rest  of  the  apostle's  life. 

To  seek  the  origin  of  Paul's  Christian  universalism 
in  his  Hellenism  is  therefore,  manifestly,  an  entire 
mistake.  It  is  rather  to  be  found  in  his  rigid 
Pharisaism.  We  may  safely  say  that  if  Saul  had 
been  less  of  a  Jew,  Paul  the  apostle  would  have  been 
less  bold  and  independent.  His  work  would  have 
been  more  superficial,  and  his  mind  less  unfettered. 
God  did  not  choose  a  heathen  to  be  the  apostle  of 
the  heathen  ;  for  he  might  have  been  ensnared  by  the 
traditions  of  Judaism,  by  its  priestly  hierarchy  and  the 
splendours  of  its  worship,  as  indeed  it  happened  with 
the  Church  of  the  second  century.  On  the  contrary, 
God  chose  a  Pharisee.  But  this  Pharisee  had  the 
most  complete  experience  of  the  emptiness  of  external 
ceremonies  and  the  crushing  yoke  of  the  law.    There 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


was  no  fear  that  he  would  ever  look  back,  that  he 
would  be  tempted  to  set  up  again  what  the  grace  of 
God  had  justly  overthrown  (Gal.  ii.  i8).  Judaism 
was  wholly  vanquished  in  his  soul,  for  it  was  wholly 
displaced. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE   GENESIS  OF   PAUL'S  GOSPEL. 

WE  are  now  in  a  position  to  understand  the 
essential  principle  of  Paul's  gospel,  and  the 
leading  elements  which,  from  the  beginning,  entered 
into  its  working  and  form  the  creative  factors  of  his 
Christian  theology. 

The  origin  of  his  gospel,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is 
to  be  found  in  his  conversion.  Paul  has  well  defined 
it  in  those  three  words  by  which  he  characterizes  the 
essential  content  of  this  Divine  revelation:  It  pleased 
God  to  reveal  His  Son  in  me,  diroKoXvyfraL  rov  viov 
avTov  iv  ifioi  (Gal.  i.  i6).  The  object  of  this  revela- 
tion, therefore,  was  simply  the  person  of  Christ. 
There  is,  as  we  have  already  said,  no  question  here 
of  that  external  manifestation  which  accompanied  his 
conversion,  but  only  of  a  revelation  or  inward  illumi- 
nation. A  veil  had  concealed  from  the  Pharisee's 
eyes  the  Divine  glory  of  the  crucified  One.  The 
cross  was  to  him  a  mj'sterj',  and  a  scandal  (i  Cor.  i. 
18-24;  ii.  9,  10).  This  veil  was  now  removed  ;  and 
on  the  instant  what  seemed  luminous  before  was 
darkened,  and  what  was  dark  came  into  light. 
Light,  the  most  radiant,  burst  suddenly  out  of 
thickest  darkness.  We  find  a  very  exact  and  vivid 
reminiscence  of  this   marvellous   phenomenon   in   a 


72  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 


/passage  which  is.  in  truth,  beyond  translation  :    On  b 
\   ©eo?  o  eiTTcov  e/c  ctkotov^  <^w?  \dix'^aL,  09  eXafi-^ev  ev 
/   Tal<i  Kap8iai<i  ijfMcov,  Trpo'i  (f)coTi(T/j,QV  rij'i  yvcocreco'i  Tfj<! 
I    B6^T}<;  rov  Qeov  iv  Trpoacoirw  XpiaTov  (2  Cor.  iv.  6).     At 
that  decisive  hour  Paul  saw  shining  on  the  brow  of  the 
victim  of  Calvary  the  Divine  glory  of  //ic  Son  of  God. 
But  there  is  still  more  in  these  words,  a-KOKoikv^ai 
Tov  v'lov  avTov  iv  i/xoL      In   the    same   epistle   Paul 
declares,  when  wishing  to  describe  his   life  since  his 
conversion  :  "  //  zs  110  longer  I  that  live,  it  is  Christ 
that  lives  in  me"  (Gal.  ii.  20  ;  Phil.  i.  21  ;  Col.  iii.  3,  4). 
His  conversion,  therefore,  was  something  beyond   a 
mere  illumination.      It   was  a  profound  crisis  of  his 
soul.     The  old  Ego  had  been  done  away,  and  a  new 
)      Ego  emerged,  whose  vital  principle  is  Christ  Himself 
(       Paul's  conversion  was  nothing  less  than  the  spiritual 
entrance,  the  birth  of  Christ  in    his   soul.      In   this 
lies  the  full  significance  of  the  phrase,  airoKoXv^ai. 
iif  ifioL      We  find  here  for  the  first  time  that  pre- 
position  eV  which   occurs  so   often   in   the   apostle's 
language,  and  which  always  indicates  a  mystic  and 
indefinable  communion. 

Such  is  the  mysterious  source  of  his  life.  Here  also 
lies  the  root  of  his  whole  system  of  thought.  We  see 
what  depths  it  reached,  depths  from  which  it  drew 
unceasingly  that  rich  nourishment  which  kept  it 
always  fresh  and  has  given  it  an  undecaying  youth. 
Had  Paul's  theology  been  merely  an  abstract  system, 
it  would   long  ago   have  disappeared,  to   be   found 

< to-day  only  in  the  history  of  philosophy, — that  her- 
barium of  dead  and  desiccated  ideas.      But  it  lives 
and  is  still  fruitful,  because  it   is   the  manifestation 
of  the  immortal  life  of  Christ  Himself. 
What  is  that  Christ  who  thus  became  the  fountain 


THE  GENESIS  OF  PAUL'S  GOSPEL.  73 

of  the  apostle's  new  consciousness  and  new  life  ?  The 
words  of  2  Corinthians  v.  14-17  come  to  our  aid,  com- 
pleting and  defining,  in  the  clearest  manner  possible, 
the  sense  of  the  Galatian  passage  which  we  have  just 
been  studying.  "  We  are  possessed  by  the  love  of 
Christ,  judging  that  if  one  died  for  all,  all  died  with 
Him  ;  and  He  died  for  all,  in  order  that  the  living 
should  no  longer  live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  Him 
who  for  their  sakes  died  and  rose  again.  Henceforth 
we  know  no  man  after  the  flesh.  And  even  though 
we  have  knoivn  Christ  after  thcjlesh,  yet  now  ive  know 
Him  so  no  more.  If  any  one  is  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new 
creature.  The  old  things  are  passed  away  ;  all  things 
are  become  new." 

Now  what  is  it  to  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh, 
and  to  cease  to  know  Him  in  that  character  ?  In  the 
apostle's  life,  these  words  can  only  refer  to  the  period 
preceding  his  conversion.  What  then  is  the  Christ 
whom  Paul  knew  previous  to  that  event?  It  was  not 
the  human  and  historical  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
whom  most  certainly  he  did  not  know  as  Christ.^ 
The  only  Christ  whom  he  knew  before  his  conversion 
was  the  Jewish  Messiah,  a  national,  exclusive  Messiah, 
who  should  win  his  triumph  by  carnal  means.  This 
Christ  he  knows  no  longer.  By  His  death  and  re- 
surrection Jesus  destroyed  this  carnal  notion  of  the 
Messiah  ;  and  these  events  presented  Him  as  a  new 
Christ,  a  Christ  /cara  Trvevfxa.     But  all  Christians  had 

*  This  does  not  imply  that  Saul,  brought  up  in  Jerusalem 
from  his  childhood,  studying  at  the  feet  of  GamaHel,  and  having 
a  married  sister  in  Jerusalem,  might  not  have  met  Jesus,  and 
heard  Him  preach  in  the  temple.  On  the  contrary,  we  consider 
that  this  is  probable,  and  that  his  conversion,  independently  of 
human  agency,  cannot  be  very  well  explained  otherwise. 


> 


74  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

not  reached  this  point  ;  a  great  number  of  them,  for- 
getting the  cross,  hid  the  true  character  of  Jesus 
behind  the  carnal  glory  of  the  Jewish  Messiah,  and 
doing  so,  knew  nothing  but  a  Christ  according  to  the 
flesh, — that  is,  Christ  without  His  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. It  was  quite  another  Jesus  ('Irjaovv  aWov) 
whom  Paul's  adversaries  preached  at  Corinth  (2  Cor. 
xi.  4).  For  Paul,  in  fact,  there  was  an  old  and  a  new 
Christ,  just  as  there  was  the  old  man,  the  man  after 
the  flesh,  and  the  new  man,  the  man  after  the  spirit 
(to,  dpxata,  ra  Kaivd :  v.  17).  Christ  had  died,  and  by 
His  death  abolished  the  flesh  and  all  the  relation- 
ships designated  by  this  word.  The  men  who  are  in 
Christ  died  and  are  raised  with  Him,  and  appear  in 
Him  as  new  men  ;  so  that  we  may  truly  say  that  we 
no  longer  know  any  one  after  the  flesh,  since  through 
this  great  crisis  of  death  and  resurrection  everything 
has  been  transformed,  both  with  regard  to  the  Head 
and  the  members ;  the  old  things  are  passed  away, 
and  everything  made  new.  The  Christ  who  entered 
the  soul  of  Paul  and  dwelt  there,  was  the  Christ  who 
had  died  and  risen  again  ;  for  this  reason  He  has 
effected  so  radical  a  change.  It  is  not  enough  to 
say  that  the  death  of  Christ  disturbed  Saul's  early 
conceptions ;  it  has  slain  the  Pharisee  in  him.  By 
learning  to  know  this  new  Christ,  Saul  is  raised  from 
the  dead  to  a  new  life. 

Thus,  from  the  very  beginning,  the  whole  Christian 
life  of  Paul  depended  on  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus.  These  two  great  events  first  made  for 
themselves  in  his  heart  the  place  that  they  were  sub- 
sequently to  occupy  in  his  theology.  How  could  it 
be  other^vise?  The  death  of  Jesus,  which  had  been  to 
him  the  great  scandal,  must  needs,  in  the  very  nature 


THE  GENESIS  OF  PAUL'S  GOSPEL.  75 


of  things,  become  the  great  mystery.  In  proportion 
as  Saul  had  been  revolted  by  it,  Paul  was  to  devote 
himself  to  it.  The  object  of  his  repugnance  became 
his  boast  and  the  mainstay  of  his  faith.  The  point 
where  human  wisdom  stumbled,  became  that  in  which 
the  wisdom  of  God  was  triumphantly  displayed.  This 
logical  reversal  of  his  views  was  so  radical  and  so 
complete,  that  henceforward,  in  his  eyes,  the  whole 
life  of  Jesus  and  the  entire  Gospel  are  summed  up  in 
the  cross.  His  preaching  is  nothing  more  than  a 
X.6709  Tov  aravpov  ;  he  would  fain  know  nothing  but 
Jesus  Christ,  and  Jesus  Christ  crucified  (i  Cor.  i.  18, 
23,  24  ;  ii.  2). 

To  this  object  all  Paul's  thoughts  were  linked,  as 
to  their  organic  centre  ;  this  was  their  starting  point, 
from  which  we  shall  find  them  advancing  in  all 
directions  under  the  vigorous  impulse  of  his  dialectic. 
The  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  the  triumphant  proof 
that  this  crucified  man  was  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of 
God  ;  but  such  a  death  as  that  of  the  Son  of  God 
could  in  no  wise  be  an  accident,  occurring  without 
cause  or  consequences.  If  it  has  taken  place,  it 
must  have  been  necessary  ;  and  it  has  served  to 
carry  out  God's  own  plan.  What  then  is  the  mean- 
ing of  this  death  ?  Death  is  the  wages  of  sin  ;  Christ 
not  having  known  sin,  did  not  die  for  Himself,  but 
for  humanity.  His  death  could  be  nothing  else  than 
a  sacrifice,  through  which,  in  the  view  of  faith,  the 
justifying  grace  of  God  is  realized  {BiKaioavvt]  0eov). 
We  will  not  push  this  deduction  further  at  present. 
The  great  theory  of  redemption  was  certainly  not 
formed  in  the  apostle's  mind  in  a  single  day,  and  we 
do  not  wish  to  anticipate  ;  but  we  have  here  its  out- 
line very  clearly  indicated. 


76  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

Such  is  the  essential  content  and  the  creative 
principle  of  that  gospel  which  Paul  justly  claimed  to 
have  received  as  a  direct  revelation  from  Jesus  Christ. 
He  was  on  this  matter,  to  use  one  of  his  own  expres- 
sions, emphatically  God-taught.  He  might  well  call 
this  gospel  my  gospel, — that  which  had  been  given 
him  by  God,  and  made  his  own  by  close  assimilation. 
On  it  he  has  stamped  ineffaceably  the  mark  of  his 
original  genius. 

I.  Paul  and  the  Historical  Christ. 

But  the  fact  that  this  inner  revelation  of  Christ  is 
independent  of  all  human  tradition  makes  it  the  more 
important  to  determine  the  relation  in  which  it  stood 
to  the  actual  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  the  nature 
of  the  link  which  united  Paul's  new  consciousness 
to  the  historical  personality  of  the  Saviour.  The 
question  amounts  to  this  :  To  what  extent  was  Paul 
acquainted  with  Christ's  earthly  life .-'  and  what  in- 
fluence did  this  knowledge  exert  on  the  formation  of 
his  views  ? 

We  consider  that  the  Tubingen  school  has  dis- 
missed this  question  altogether  too  lightly.  Accord- 
ing to  that  school,  Paul  was  either  very  imperfectly 
^  acquainted  with  the  life  and  historical  teaching  of 
Jesus,  or  else  he  despised  its  traditions  as  being  a 
knowledge  of  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  such  as 
would  have  made  his  gospel  dependent  on  the  teach- 
ing of  the  first  apostles.  But  these  two  explanations 
are  equally  baseless.  The  first  is  only  supported  by 
2  Cor.  v.  1 6,  a  passage  which  we  have  already  dis- 
cussed. The  distinction  Paul  makes  there  between 
Christ  after  the  flesh  and  Christ  after  the  spirit,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  not  a  distinction  between  the  historical 


THE  GENESIS  OF  PAITS  GOSPEL.  77 

Christ  and  the  Christ  dwelling  in  himself.  Besides, 
we  cannot  see  how  the  traditional  knowledge  of  the 
doings  and  sufferings  and  teaching  of  Jesus  could 
possibly  interfere  with  the  independence  of  his 
apostleship  or  the  originality  of  his  gospel.  It  is 
very  clear  that  this  external  knowledge,  however 
minute  and  exact  it  may  have  been,  could  not  of 
itself  make  him  an  apostle,  nor  even  convert  him. 
Before  his  conversion,  he  had  no  doubt  heard  many 
particulars  respecting  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ;  but  they 
remained  in  his  memory  as  so  much  foreign  and  dead 
matter,  altogether  beyond  his  understanding.  The 
inward  revelation,  while  it  irradiated  his  soul,  lighted 
up  at  the  same  time  the  historical  life  of  the  Crucified. 
So  far  from  being  contradictory,  this  revelation  and 
that  external  knowledge  of  Christ  lent  mutual  con- 
firmation ;  each  was  necessary  to  the  other.  Without 
the  former,  the  historical  tradition  is  mere  worthless 
and  inert  matter ;  without  the  second,  the  inward 
revelation  could  have  produced  only  an  idealistic 
theology,  having  no  root  in  the  realities  of  histor}'. 
The  two  are  related  to  each  other  as  the  soul  is  to 
the  bod}',  and  form  in  combination  an  indissoluble 
organic  unit}'. 

At  first  sight,  Paul's  knowledge  of  the  historical  * 
Christ  seems  to  have  been  very  limited  ;  and  we  are 
surprised,  on  first  examining  his  epistles  for  this  pur- 
pose, to  find  so  few  allusions  to  the  events  of  the  life 
of  Jesus  and  so  few  quotations  from  His  discourses. 
But  we  should  be  mistaken  in  yielding  to  this  first 
impression  ;  and  it  may  very  readily  be  explained. 

Modern  criticism,  which  detects  so  many  subtleties 
and  such  delicate  shades  of  meaning,  sometimes  fails 
to  perceive  the  simplest  and  most  obvious  things.     It 


78  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

has  forgotten,  for  instance,  that  Paul  was  a  missionary 
before  he  was  a  theologian,  and  that  he  preached  the 
Gospel  in  places  where  neither  Jesus  nor  the  Messiah 
had  ever  been  heard  of  Must  he  not  then,  of  neces- 
sity, have  described  this  strange  Person  and  explained 
His  title?  Must  he  not  have  given  in  the  syna- 
gogues of  Asia  such  a  conception  and  impression  of 
Jesus — His  life,  miracles,  death,  and  resurrection — • 
that  candid  minds  were  naturally  led  to  declare.  This 
Jesus  was  the  Christ  ?  Can  we  imagine  the  apostle's 
missionary  preaching  apart  from  these  conditions  ? 

But  all  this  early  preaching  and  historical  instruc- 
tion about  the  life  of  Jesus  necessarily  belonged  to  a 
period  of  Paul's  life  antecedent  to  that  which  gave 
birth  to  his  great  epistles  ;  and  these  letters,  therefore, 
though  not  containing  many  Gospel  narratives,  assume 
in  their  believing  readers  a  previous  and  fairly  detailed 
acquaintance  with  the  history  of  Jesus.  Let  us  try  to 
gather  up  the  passing  allusions  and  brief  indications 
which  are  found  scattered  throughout  them  ;  when 
collected,  they  will  be  found,  as  a  whole,  more 
definite  and  substantial  than  at  first  sight  one  could 
have  ventured  to  hope.^ 

The  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  shows  us  what 
place  Christian  tradition  held  in  Paul's  preaching 
(i  Cor.  xi.  23,  XV.  1-9).  The  death  and  resurrection 
of  Jesus  no  doubt  formed  the  centre  of  his  earlier 
ministry.  But  the  importance  of  the  theological  ideas 
which  he  attached  to  these  great  facts  only  made  his 
care  in  relating  them  the  more  signal.     He  did  this 


^  See  Parch,  Jahrbiicher  fur  deutsclie  TheoL,  1858,  pp.  1-85, 
Paulus  unci  Jesus;  and  Keim,  Geschichte  Jesu  von  NazarOy 
vol.  i.,  p.  35  {Zeus^niss  des  Paulus).     [Eng.  trans.,  i.,  54-64.] 


THE   GENESIS  OF  PAUVS  GOSPEL.  79 

with  such  exact  and  vivid  detail,  that  after  his 
description  of  the  great  scenes  of  the  passion,  his 
listeners  felt  as  if  they  had  seen  them  with  their  own 
eyes  :  o\^  kut  6(^daX^ov<i  ^Irjaom  XpiaTo<i  irpoejpdifiT) 
iv  vfxlv  eaTavp(oiievo<i  (Gal.  iii.  l).  What  Paul  had 
done  in  Galatia,  he  had  certainly  done  at  Corinth,  and 
in  all  the  Churches  of  Asia  (i  Cor.  xi.  23,  xv.  1-9). 

Among  these  historical  details  we  may  note  several 
preserved  in  his  letters,  which  are  identical  with  those 
found  in  the  Gospels.  They  were  the  rulers  of  the 
people  (0/  ap-xovri<i)  who  condemned  Jesus  (i  Cor.  ii. 
8 ;  Acts  xiii.  27 ;  comp.  Matt.  xxvi.  3).  It  was  through 
an  act  of  treachery,  perpetrated  at  night  (vu/ctI 
irapehiZern),  that  He  fell  into  their  hands.  In  the 
course  of  this  night,  and  before  His  betrayal,  Jesus, 
during  His  last  repast  with  His  disciples,  instituted 
the  holy  supper.  The  account  that  Paul  gives  of  this 
in  I  Corinthians  xi.  23  corresponds  literally  with  that 
in  Luke's  Gospel. 

Paul  knows  that  the  Saviour's  passion  was  the 
time  of  His  weakness,  and  of  His  entire  desertion; 
and  that  He  was  overwhelmed  with  afflictions  and 
outrages, — accepted  without  a  murmur  (2  Cor.  xiii. 
4 ;  Rom.  xv.  3-6).  Many  other  passages  assume 
previous  descriptions  of  His  sufferings  and  death  (tt/i/ 
veKp(o(TLv  Tov  'Irjaov  'irepL<f)6povre^,  2  Cor.  iv.  lO  ;  comp. 
Gal.  vi.  17;  Col.  i.  24).  According  to  Paul,  Jesus 
was  fastened  to  the  cross  with  nails,  and  His  blood 
poured  forth  (Col.  ii.  14  ;  comp.  John  xx.  25).  The 
comparison  he  makes  between  this  death  and  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Paschal  lamb  tells  us  the  exact  time 
of  its  occurrence  (i  Cor.  v.  7). 

With  no  less  precision  Paul  had  related  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus.    The  words  of  i  Corinthians 


8o  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

XV.  1-9  are  nothing  else  than  a  summary  of  his 
preaching  on  this  point.  This  resurrection  occurred 
on  "  the  third  day."  That  we  have  here  an  historical 
statement,  and  not  the  application  of  a  saying  of 
prophecy,  is  proved  by  the  substitution  in  the  Pauline 
Churches  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  for  the  Sabbath 
(i  Cor.  xvi.  2).  Finally,  Paul  seems,  in  this  same 
chapter,  to  have  arranged  the  different  appearances 
of  the  risen  Lord  in  chronological  order ;  and  ever}-- 
thing  that  follows  leads  us  to  infer  that  he  had 
moreover  insisted  on  the  external  and  corporeal 
nature  of  this  resurrection. 

The  apostle,  therefore,  was  perfectly  familiar  with 
the  last  scenes  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  told  the  story 
of  them  with  great  exactness.  The  passion  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ  were  not  to  him,  as  to  the  Gnostics, 
a  pair  of  abstract  notions, — the  passion  and  triumph  of 
an  ideal  Christ  resembling  the  Sophia  of  Valentinus  ; 
they  were  historical  and  concrete  facts,  preserved 
in  their  actual  character,  and  with  all  their  accom- 
panying circumstances.  He  sets  before  us  the 
veritable  cross  on  which  Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  hung 
but  a  few  years  ago ;  the  tomb  where  His  body  was 
buried,  and  from  whence  He  rose  in  triumph.  Even 
had  it  been  impossible  to  prove  that  Paul  knew  any- 
thing else  of  the  historical  life  of  Jesus,  the  manner 
in  which  he  has  examined  and  estimated  these  two 
great  events  sufficiently  proves  the  connexion  of 
his  faith  with  the  historical  Christ,  and  forbids  our 
reducing  his  theology  to  mere  idealism. 

When  he  has  related  these  last  events  in  such 
detail,  can  we  believe  that  the  apostle  ignored  all 
that  belonged  to  the  previous  life  of  Jesus  ?  Is  it  a 
verj'  hazardous  conjecture  to  suppose  that  during  his 


THE   GENESIS  OF  PAUVS  GOSPEL.  Si 


fifteen  days'  visit  to  Peter  at  Jerusalem  after  his  con- 
version, he  questioned  him  minutely  about  the  life 
of  their  common  Master  ?  Surely  the  term  which 
Paul  employs  in  Galatians  i.  i8,  laropijaai  Krj^av, 
allows  us  to  think  so.  Besides,  how  could  this  eager 
follower  of  Jesus  Christ  do  other  than  seize  upon  and 
master  all  that  wealth  of  Gospel  tradition  so  piously 
preserved  by  the  early  Christian  communities,  and 
reproduced  in  our  first  three  Gospels  ? 

If  he  never  appeals  to  the  Saviour's  words  to 
establish  or  defend  his  doctrines,  this  fact,  however 
strange  it  may  appear  to  us,  encumbered  as  we  are 
with  scholastic  methods,  has  nevertheless  a  cause 
and  an  explanation  other  than  that  of  ignorance 
or  contempt.  The  apostle  was  far  from  regarding 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  as  a  collection  of  sayings,  an 
.external  law  or  written  letter  (ypufifMo),  which  he 
had  nothing  more  to  do  than  to  quote  at  every  turn. 
Christ  was  to  him,  above  all  things,  a  life-giving 
spirit,  an  immanent  and  fertile  principle,  producing 
new  fruit  at  each  new  season.  There  was  such  a 
perfect  identity  in  his  eyes  between  the  historical  and 
the  indwelling  Christ,  that  he  never  separates  nor 
distinguishes  them,  and  even  attributes  to  the  former 
that  with  which  the  latter  had  inspired  him,  and  to 
the  latter  that  which  unquestionably  he  owed  to  the 
former.  We  find  a  remarkable  example  of  this 
identification  in  i  Corinthians  xi.  23. 

But  was  this  a  purely  subjective  idea  ?  When  Paul 
expresses  his  certainty  that  his  apostolic  teaching 
is  indeed  the  faithful  interpretation  of  the  Master's, 
is  he  the  victim  of  an  illusion  ?  Or  is  it  not  more 
natural  to  suppose  that  he  had  studied  the  discourses 
of  Jesus,  and  knew  them  well  enough  to  feel  sure 

6 


82  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


that  no  one  could  seriously  bring  any  of  Christ's 
words  in  argument  against  him  ?  If,  after  all,  we  still 
feel  surprise  at  not  meeting  with  more  frequent  quota- 
tions in  his  epistles,  we  must  remember  that  the  epistle 
of  Peter,  the  Apocalypse,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and 
the  first  epistle  of  John  contain  still  fewer.  From  the 
beginning,  Christ  was  not  so  much  the  herald  or 
preacher  of  the  Gospel,  as  Himself  the  object  of  the 
apostles'  faith  and  teaching.  To  know  what  Christ 
had  said  or  done  seemed  less  important  than  to  love 
Him,  to  receive  Him,  and  to  give  oneself  to  Him. 

There  certainly  existed  for  Paul,  as  for  the  other 
apostles,  an  objective,  traditional  teaching  of  Jesus.  It 
is  enough  to  recall  the  care  and  exactness  with  which 
he  has  preserved  and  transmitted  to  the  believers 
at  Corinth  the  very  words  used  in  instituting  the 
Lord's  supper  (i  Cor.  xi.  23).  The  whole  discussion 
on  marriage  and  celibacy,  which  occupies  the  seventh 
chapter  of  the  same  epistle,  furnishes  a  proof  yet 
more  decisive.  The  apostle  distinguishes  with  perfect 
clearness  between  the  Saviour's  express  command 
and  his  own  inspiration,  and  repeatedly  sets  them  in 
contrast :  ovk  iyto  dWa  6  Kvpto^ — 6700  ov^  0  Kvpio^ 
(i  Cor.  vii.  10,  12,  25).  The  commandment  Paul 
refers  to  is  found  in  the  Gospels  ;  and  on  the  points 
concerning  which  he  declares  he  has  received  nothing 
from  the  Lord  we  find,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that 
Jesus  was  silent.  Should  any  one,  notwithstanding 
this  remarkable  coincidence,  refer  this  commandment 
to  an  inspiration  from  the  indwelling  Christ,  he  must 
in  that  case  admit  that  when  Paul  gives  his  personal 
opinion  in  the  25th  verse  {yvdOfiTjv  SiBcofit),  he  is 
speaking  independently  of  his  apostolic  inspiration. 
But  this  is  to  come  into  collision  with  the  40th  verse, 


THE  GENESIS  OF  PAUVS  GOSPEL. 


where  he  appeals  to  his  inspiration  for  the  very  pur- 
pose of  justifying  this  opinion  :  "  I  beh'eve  that  I  also 
have  the  Spirit  of  God." 

In  chapter  ix.  14  there  occurs  another  quotation, 
introduced  in  a  still  more  remarkable  manner.  The 
apostle  wishes  to  establish  the  right  of  evangelists  to 
live  by  the  Gospel.  He  first  gives  a  rational  argu- 
ment, drawn  from  the  nature  of  things ;  then  an 
exegetical  argument  taken  from  a  passage  in  the 
Law :  "  Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth 
the  corn "  ;  and  finally  he  completes  his  proof  by 
quoting  a  positive  command  of  the  Lord :  6  Kvpio<i 
Bcira^ev  (comp.  Matt.  x.  lo;  Luke  x.  7).  Evidently 
the  word  of  Jesus  comes  in  at  the  last,  as  the  supreme 
and  decisive  authority.  Observe  further,  throughout 
this  passage,  the  images  Paul  employs  to  describe 
the  work  of  the  Gospel  ;  they  are  the  same  that  Jesus 
loved  to  use  :  (pvreveiv  afnrekwva,  jroifMaiveiv  Trotfivrjv, 
a-Treipeiv,  depl^eiv,  dporpidv.  Reminiscences  like  these 
are  scattered  through  all  the  epistles  : 

Comp.  Rom.  xii.  14,  17,  20  with  Matt.  v.  44,  etc. 
„      I  Thess.  V.  I,  etc.         „     Matt.  xxiv.  36,  44. 
„      I  Cor.  xiii.  2  „     Matt.  xvii.  20. 

„      Acts  XX.  35. 

Paul  does  not  relate  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
to  any  larger  extent  than  he  quotes  His  discourses ; 
but  he  assumes  that  they  are  known  to  his  readers. 
To  people  who  had  never  heard  the  principal  Gospel 
narratives,  his  epistles  would  present  insoluble  enig- 
mas at  every  line.  I  need  no  further  proof  of  this 
than  the  manner  in  which  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles 
speaks  of  the  Twelve,  and  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus 
and  His  relations  with  them. 

There  is  one  thing,  however,  calculated  to  impress 


84.  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

us  more  powerfully  than  all  these  isolated  facts.  It 
is  the  general  picture  Paul  draws  of  the  Saviour's  life, 
so  exactly  answering  to  the  impression  left  on  us  by 
the  Gospel  narratives  as  a  whole.  Jesus  was  essentially 
man  ;  nothing  at  first  sight  distinguished  Him  from 
other  men  (Rom.  v,  15  ;  Phil.  ii.  7).  He  was  born  a 
Jew  ;  he  lived  under  the  law  (Gal.  iv.  4)  ;  He  confined 
His  ministry  to  the  people  of  Israel,  and  continued 
till  the  end  the  liiinister  of  tlie  circumcision  (Rom.  xv. 
8).  The  apostle  speaks  of  Jesus  as  Jesus  Himself 
speaks  of  the  Son  of  man  :  He  was  poor,  despised 
humble,  obedient  ;  He  did  not  come  to  be  ministered 
unto,  but  to  minister  ;  He  took  the  rank  and  the  form 
of  a  servant ;  His  whole  life  was  service  and  obedience 
{SiaKovia,  viratcoi')).  It  is  perfectly  true,  as  Baur  ob- 
serves, that  Paul  views  the  Saviour's  life  throughout 
in  the  light  of  His  death,  and  sees  in  this  death  the 
climax  of  His  ministry  and  the  consummation  of 
His  obedience.  But  was  it  not  from  the  same  point 
of  view  that  Christ  Himself  regarded  His  life  and 
work  ?  See  Matt.  xx.  28  ;  Luke  xxii.  27  ;  Mark 
X.  38  ;  John  xii.  27. 

The  Christ  who  lived  in  the  apostle's  newly 
awakened  consciousness  was,  therefore,  by  no  means 
a  mere  ideal  and  subjective  image.  This  indwelling 
Christ  remained  at  the  same  time  an  external  type- 
One  whom  Paul  cherished  in  his  memory  and  strove 
daily  to  know  and  imitate  more  perfectly.  Indeed, 
the  imitation  of  Christ  is,  as  we  know,  an  essential 
principle  of  the  Pauline  ethics  ;  and  does  not  this 
principle  imply  of  necessity  an  objective  and  his- 
torical model,  which  every  believer  keeps  before  his 
eyes  (i  Cor.  xi.  i  ;  Phil.  ii.  5)?  In  this  way,  Jesus 
is  at  once  the  immanent  principle  of  sanctification 


THE  GENESIS  OF  PAUL'S  GOSPEL  H 

in  the  man,  and  the  ideal  of  holiness  realized  before 
his  eyes.  It  is  impossible  to  detect  any  contradiction 
or  breach  between  the  indwelling  and  the  historical 
Christ.  The  latter  was  essentially  spirit  (TTvev^a). 
During  His  earthly  life  this  Divine  force  was  loca- 
lized ;  it  was  inclosed  in  the  limits  of  the  flesh.  But 
when  the  flesh  was  destroyed  by  death,  this  Divine 
force,  which  was  the  very  soul  of  Jesus,  displayed 
all  its  expansive  power.  Poured  into  the  heart  of 
believers,  it  made  not  only  Christ's  memory  live  again 
there,  but  His  actual  holiness.  Christ  Himself  be- 
came the  believer's  interior  life. 

Thus  we  see  how  the  two  Christs  continued  one, 
and  how  the  apostle  passed  from  the  one  to  the  other. 
Instead  of  being  opposed  in  his  ideas,  they  could 
not  exist  apart  from  each  other ;  they  are  mutual!}' 
dependent  and  confirmatory.  From  this  intimate 
blending  of  history  and  faith,  of  the  subjective  and 
objective  in  his  mind,  the  Pauline  theology  resulted  ; 
and  in  this  combination  lies  its  distinguishing  feature. 
In  brief,  the  apostle  was  so  fully  inspired  by  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  and  understood  Him  .so  well,  that  his 
apostolic  teaching,  with  all  its  originality  and  in- 
dependence, was,  notwithstanding  appearances,  an 
entirely  faithful  interpretation  of  the  Master's  views. 

II.  Paul'.s  Use  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Besides  this  primary  external  factor  in  the  genesis 
of  Paul's  system  of  thought  we  must  notice  a  second, 
which,  though  much  less  important,  was  equal!)' 
essential.  I  refer  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  use 
which  the  apostle  continued  to  malce  of  it  after  his 
conversion. 

The  faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  which  had  seized  him 


t6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

in  his  strict  Pharisaism,  had  destroyed  the  unity  of 
his  religious  consciousness.  He  found  himself  placed 
between  the  ancient  and  venerated  revelation  which 
he  could  not  possibly  renounce,  and  the  new  revelation 
which  had  been  forced  upon  him.  So  soon  as  the 
contending  emotions  of  the  first  few  days  were  passed, 
Paul  must  at  once  have  set  to  work  to  re-establish 
the  unity  of  his  belief,  and  recover  peace  of  mind. 
Nothing  furthered  the  development  of  his  views  more 
than  this  long  internal  struggle. 

The  first  result  of  the  revolution  which  had  been 
wrought  in  him  was  to  subordinate  the  old  revelation 
to  the  new.  The  Christian  faith  served  as  a  principle 
of  criticism  to  direct  him  in  his  study  of  the  Old 
Testament,  sifting  out  its  different  elements  and 
enabling  him  to  estimate  the  worth  of  each.  By  this 
means  he  soon  came  to  distinguish  and  contrast  the 
Laiv  and  the  Promise,  and  to  proclaim  the  abolition 
of  the  one  and  the  perfect  realization  of  the  other. 
But  the  Divine  authority  of  the  sacred  writings  in 
no  wise  suffered  from  these  distinctions.  If  the  old 
covenant  ceased  to  exist  as  an  economy  of  salvation, 
it  became  all  the  more  important  as  di  preparation  2ind 
3.  prophecy.  The  typological  method  was  the  result  of 
this  situation,  its  function  being  to  clear  away  contra- 
diction and  re-establish  harmony  between  the  old  and 
the  new  oracles.  This  method,  which  was  no  more 
than  the  inevitable  result  of  the  relationship  that  the 
new  faith  wished  to  maintain  with  the  the  old,  was 
employed  by  all  the  New  Testament  writers.  But 
Paul's  rabbinical  education  gave  him  in  this  respect 
an  immense  advantage  over  the  other  apostles.  He 
may  be  said  to  have  read  the  Old  Testament  books 
with  the  eyes  of  a  Christian,  and  the  penetration  of 


THE   GENESIS  OF  PAWS  GOSPEL.  87 


a  rabbi.  Everything  in  this  long  history  of  God's 
people  became  prophecy ;  its  personages  and  events 
equally  so  with  its  discourses.  Its  language  became 
transfigured  ;  the  spiritual  meaning  shone  forth 
through  the  veil  of  the  literal  sense.  Thus  a  rich 
typology  was  created  and  evolved,  which  served  to 
support  and  illustrate  all  the  apostle's  demonstrations. 
Only  a  few  examples  of  this  teaching  are  preserved 
in  the  epistles  ;  but  this  method  must  have  held  a 
much  larger  place  in  Paul's  missionary  teaching. 

It  will  not  do  to  regard  this  typology  as  a  mere 
formal  accommodation  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  think- 
ing, or  as  a  style  of  literary  illustration.  It  is  inherent 
in  the  matter  of  Paul's  doctrine,  and  forms  an  integral 
part  of  it.  At  the  same  time,  Baur  goes  much  too  far 
when  he  says  that  the  Old  Testament  was  to  Paul  the 
sole  objective  source  of  truth,  the  only  external  ground 
of  his  religious  belief.  As  we  have  seen,  he  found  a 
fuller  and  higher  revelation  in  the  person  of  Jesus. 
No  ;  it  was  not  from  the  Old  Testament,  not  by  way 
of  exegesis,  that  the  apostle  attained  the  ground  on 
which  his  doctrine  rests.  If  his  faith  depends  on  his 
exegesis,  his  exegesis  depends  still  more  on  his  faith. 
His  convictions  are  not  the  result  of  his  bold  method 
of  interpretation  ;  that  method  can  only  be  explained 
by  the  new  convictions,  which  of  necessity  gave  rise 
to  it.  Paul  borrowed  little  from  the  Old  Testament 
beyond  its  forms  ;  it  was  an  ancient  mould  into  which 
he  poured  a  new  material. 

But  we  can  understand  how  greatly  his  ideas  must 
have  been  influenced  by  this  constant  effort  to  trace 
them  in  the  old  covenant.  Nothing,  is  better  calcu- 
lated than  allegory  to  develop  an  idea  to  its  fullest 
extent.     The  famous  allegory  of  Hagar  and   Sarah 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


should  be  studied  from  this  point  of  view  (Gal.  iv. 
21-31).  It  is  evident  in  this  case,  that  if  the  idea 
created  the  image,  the  image  in  its  turn  was  a  won- 
derful help  in  defining  the  idea  and  developing  its 
fulness. 

We  now  perceive  how  the  different  elements  of  the 
Pauline  system  were  constituted.  The  inner  revelation 
of  Christ  is  its  central  and  generating  principle,  to 
which  the  other  two  are  related  as  the  body  is  to  the 
soul.  Historical  knowledge  concerning  Jesus,  and 
the  institutions  and  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament, 
were  in  themselves  nothing  more  than  inert  matter 
which  the  Pauline  principle  permeated  and  vivified, 
finding  in  them  its  constant  nourishment,  the  means 
for  its  expression  and  realization.  But  that  is  not 
all.  We  must  further  ask,  where  the  power  lay  that 
created  the  system,  that  united  these  different  elements 
and  gave  to  Paul's  theology  its  eminently  original 
character.  This  power  consisted,  and  could  consist  in 
nothing  else  than  the  apostle's  strong  individuality. 
His  spiritual  individuality  explains  his  doctrine,  for 
it  has  produced  it.  Let  us  endeavour,  in  conclusion, 
to  indicate  its  essential  features. 

HI.  Paul's  Idiosyncrasy. 
The  lofty  character  of  Paul  has  not  always  been 
properly  apprehended,  because  it  has  too  often  been 
considered  from  a  narrow  point  of  view.  Its  striking 
originality  seems  to  be  due  to  the  fruitful  combi- 
nation in  it  of  two  spiritual  forces, — two  orders  of 
faculty  which  are  seldom  found  united  in  this  degree 
in  one  personality,  and  which  in  the  case  of  Jesus 
alone  present  themselves  more  perfectly  blended  and 
carried  even  to  a  further  height  than  in  the  apostle. 


THE   GENESIS  OF  PAUL'S  GOSPEL. 


I  mean  dialectic  poiver  and  religions  inspiration^  the 
rational  and  the  mystical  clement  ;  or,  to  borrow 
Paul's  own  lant^uage,  the  activity  of  vov<^  and  that  of 
TTveO/xa. 

The  rational  or  dialectic  nature  of  the  great  apostle's 
doctrine  has  been  very  forcibly  exhibited  by  Baur. 
Paul  evidently  belongs  to  the  family  of  powerful 
dialecticians  ;  he  ranks  with  Plato,  with  Augustine 
and  Calvin,  with  Schleiermacher,  Spinoza,  Hegel.  An 
imperious  necessity  compelled  him  to  give  his  belief 
full  dialectic  expression,  and  to  raise  it  above  its  con- 
tradictories. Having  affirmed  it,  he  confronts  it  at 
once  with  its  opposite  ;  and  his  faith  is  incomplete 
till  it  has  triumphed  over  this  antithesis  and  reached 
a  point  of  higher  unity. 

It  is  interesting  to  study,  in  this  aspect,  the  progress 
of  ideas  and  the  unfolding  of  the  apostle's  argument 
in  his  great  epistles.  P'rom  the  particular  question 
Paul's  mind  rises  at  one  bound  to  the  general  principle 
governing  the  whole  discussion.  Having  lighted  up 
the  subject  from  this  height,  he  descends  again  with 
irresistible  power  to  the  level  of  fact.  It  is  this  dia- 
lectical procedure  which  imparts  such  crushing  force  to 
his  logic.  This  method  is  apparent  in  the  two  epistles 
to  the  Corinthians,  and  still  more  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans.  At  the  very  outset  Paul  ascends  to 
the  general  idea  of  righteonsness  {^iKaioavvi]),  which 
he  at  once  divides  into  a  negative  and  a  positive  con- 
ception. The  first  eight  chapters  are  only  the  dialec- 
tical development  of  these  two  opposing  ideas.  The 
apostle  follows  each  to  its  ultimate  consequences. 
He  shows — with  what  power  of  logic  we  know — how 
the  former  notion,  that  of  justification  by  works,  soon 
disproves  itself,  and  inevitably  ends  in  the  despairing 


90  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


cry,  "Oh,  wretch  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from 
this  body  of  death  ? "  But  at  the  same  time  he 
follows  the  development  of  the  latter  conception  in 
all  its  fruitful  consequences,  till  we  hear  the  final  song 
of  triumph  :  "  Who  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God  ?  "  (Rom.  vii.  25  ;  comp.  viii.  35,  39.)  His  dialectic 
power  is  certainly  the  mainspring  of  Paul's  thought. 
It  is  this  which  impelled  it  forward,  which  gave  it 
organic  form  and  created  the  rich  and  powerful 
system  in  which  it  has  embodied  itself 

However  important  this  rational  element  may  be, 
those  who  look  no  further  only  see  the  surface  of  the 
Pauline  thought.  Beneath  this  reflective  force  of 
reason  there  is  that  which  we  have  called,  for  lack  of 
another  name,  the  pneiunatical  life,  taking  its  rise  at 
the  point  of  contact  between  the  human  soul  and  the 
invisible  world.  Paul's  habitual  state  is,  in  fact,  not 
that  of  a  mind  which  reasons,  but  of  a  soul  which 
yy-  contemplates  and  adores.  Beyond  the  reasoning 
faculty  there  lay  in  him  the  realm  of  intuition, — truth 
palpable  to  the  soul,  deep  feeling  which  nourished 
and  gave  birth  to  thought,  and  which  thought  was 
never  quite  able  to  express.  It  was  in  this  region  that 
he  felt  those  ineffable  things  which  it  is  not  possible 
for  man  to  utter  (appTjra  ptjfiara,  a  ovk  i^bv  avdpcoira 
\a\fjaai,  2  Cor.  xii.  4).  There  we  have  a  mysterious 
life  at  once  active  and  passive,  an  inexplicable  inter- 
course between  the  spirit  of  man  and  of  God,  which 
the  psychical  man  with  his  ordinary  common  sense 
regards  as  foolishness  (i  Cor.  ii.  14);  but  in  which  lay, 
nevertheless,  the  apostle's  chief  wealth  and  power,  and 
his  supreme  consolation. 

This  condition  of  soul  cannot  be  analysed,  because 
the  soul  on  entering  it  ceases,  to  some   extent,  to 


THE  GENESIS  OF  PAWS  GOSPEL.  91 

belong  to  and  observe  itself.  It  is  the  sphere  of 
ecstasy,  of  vision,  and  of  all  the  phenomena  that  we 
describe  as  inspiration.  It  is  a  permeation  of  the 
individual  soul  by  mysterious  forces.  In  it,  strangely 
enough,  we  find  our  personal  life  expand,  while  at  the 
same  time  our  dependence  increases.  To  condemn 
such  a  state  as  morbid  is,  in  my  opinion,  a  proof 
of  great  levity  of  mind  and  rashness  of  judgment. 
No  doubt  this  mystical  tendency  may  be  perverted 
and  corrupted,  like  all  other  faculties.  But  it  is 
not  in  itself  a  disease,  any  more  than  they,  for  it  is 
natural  to  every  human  soul.  I  am  perfectly  aware 
that  ordinary  psychology  gives  it  no  place  in  its  tra- 
ditional categories  ;  but  these  categories  are  far  from 
including  the  whole  of  life.  Where  could  we  find  a 
more  wholesome  mental  constitution  than  belonged 
to  Socrates,  or  to  Luther  ;  where  a  more  true  and 
delicate  conscience  than  that  of  Joan  of  Arc  ?  And 
yet  we  know  that  their  spiritual  life  had  its  source 
far  beyond  the  sphere  of  pure  reason.  If  this  faculty 
of  mystical  exaltation  is  a  disease,  we  should  have 
to  acknowledge  that  Jesus,  despite  the  harmony  of 
His  nature,  possessed  an  unsound  mind  ;  for  He 
had  His  moments  of  ecstasy — sacred  moments,  which 
a  coarse,  vulgar  understanding  profanes  by  calling 
them  hallucinations  (Mark  i.  12  ;  iii.  21  ;  Luke 
ix.  29  ;  X.  18).  No  ;  this  is  not  the  sign  of  a  morbid 
disposition.  In  truth,  he  is  much  rather  the  sick 
man  who  has  never  known  any  state  but  that  of 
dry,  cold  reason.  What  else  is  religion,  what  is 
prayer  and  adoration,  but  an  exaltation  of  spirit — to 
employ  again  Paul's  own  language,  an  iv  irvev/xaTi 
eivai  ? 

We    recognise    this  mysterious  life  underlying  all 


9*  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


the  reasonings  of  the  apostle.  It  constitutes  the 
foundation  of  his  being ;  and  we  feci  the  throb  of  its 
mighty  pulsations  through  all  his  dialectic  machiner\-. 
This  dialectic  is,  in  fact,  a  mere  instrument  which 
of  itself  creates  nothing.  The  life  of  the  Spirit,  an 
ever  gushing  spring,  throws  out  the  material  which 
his  logic  interprets,  elaborates,  and  organizes.  This 
inner  life  had  been  created  in  Paul  by  the  first 
revelation  of  Christ  in  his  soul.  Christ  living  in  him 
continued  to  reveal  Himself  in  and  through  him. 
This  abiding  and  inward  revelation  forms  the  basis 
of  apostolic  inspiration.  It  supplies  to  him  an  abso- 
lute assurance,  springing  from  his  conviction  of  being 
in  immediate  possession  of  the  truth  ;  it  is  an  un- 
erring instinct  that  guides  the  apostle  alike  in  thought 
and  action.  From  that  hour  this  pnejimatical  life 
remained  in  him,  and  was  ever  growing  and  in- 
creasing. It  manifested  itself  not  only  in  the  jo}-, 
the  strength  and  authority  that  it  gave  him,  but  in 
extraordinary  phenomena  and  exceptional  cJiaris- 
inaia,  in  his  gift  of  healing,  his  speaking  zvith  tongues, 
his  ecstasies,  visions  atid  revelations  (2  Cor.  xii.  12  ; 
I  Cor.  xiv.  13  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  i). 

In  this  mysterious  sphere  great  problems  were 
solved,  and  great  resolutions  taken.  Whenever  the 
apostle  reaches  a  critical  stage  of  his  career,  we  find 
one  of  these  inner  revelations  occurring,  to  show 
him  what  course  to  pursue  and  to  put  an  end  to 
his  hesitations.  Just  when  his  anxiety  is  keenest 
and  his  excitement  most  intense,  there  comes  to  him 
a  sudden  illumination.  We  find  this  phenomenon 
occurring  in  all  the  great  crises  of  his  life.  Thus 
on  his  first  encounter  with  the  Judaizers  at  Antioch, 
it  was  a  revelation  that  pointed  out  to  him  the  way 


THE   GENESIS  OF  PAUVS  GOSPEL.  93 

to  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  2).  When  on  the  point  of 
leaving  that  city  to  begin  his  great  mission  to  the 
heathen,  he  had  a  vision  in  the  temple  (Acts  xxii. 
18).  It  was  a  vision  again  that  directed  his  course 
to  Europe  (Acts  xvi.  9).  On  another,  less  familiar 
occasion,  when,  buffeted  and  beaten  by  Satan's  mes- 
senger, he  despaired  of  his  apostleship,  there  re- 
sounded in  his  ears  the  comforting  words  :  "  My  grace 
is  sufficient  for  thee  "  (2  Cor.  xii.  9).  Lastly,  during 
that  frightful  tempest  which  drove  the  vessel  bearing 
him  to  Rome  upon  the  shores  of  Malta,  a  vision 
came  to  assure  Paul  that  he  should  see  Rome  and 
Caesar  (Acts  xxvii.  24). 

We  recognise  therefore  that  Paul's  apostolic  in- 
spiration bore  the  chief  part  in  the  genesis  and 
development  of  his  belief.  But  we  must  understand 
its  working  differently  from  the  way  in  which  it  has 
been  understood  hitherto.  Faith  without  criticism, 
and  criticism  without  faith  seem  to  me  to  result 
equally  in  a  moral  impossibility.  The  first  assumes 
that  this  theological  system — so  human,  rational, 
and  individual  in  its  traits — fell  straight  from  heaven 
into  Paul's  mind  ;  the  latter  makes  Paul  out  an 
enthusiast,  a  sort  of  Swedenborg,  who  mistook  his 
own  ideas  for  a  revelation  from  God.  Let  us  take 
the  gospel  of  Paul  for  what  it  was — not  a  series  of 
scholastic  formulse,  but  the  positive  and  immanent 
revelation  of  Christ,  which  while  it  continued  to 
unfold  itself  in  the  hidden  depths  of  his  conscious- 
ness, displayed  its  ethical  product  in  the  fruits  of 
righteousness,  and  its  intellectual  result  in  his  theories 
and  his  ideas.  Thus  we  find  it  render  a  priceless  aid 
to  our  faith,  without  imposing  a  burdensome  }-oke 
upon  our  understanding. 


94  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

Being  now  in  possession  of  all  the  elements  which 
combined  to  form  the  Pauline  system,  we  might  en- 
deavour to  reconstruct  it  a  priori^  by  way  of  logical 
deduction.  But  we  shall  resist  this  temptation.  To 
construct  it  in  this  way  would  only  be  to  cramp 
and  petrify  it.  Paul's  theology  was  not  developed 
after  this  fashion  ;  it  was  not  wrought  out  in  solitude. 
Its  development  was  logical,  no  doubt,  but  slow  and 
laborious  notwithstanding.  The  apostle's  circum- 
stances, his  external  conflicts  and  practical  necessities, 
have  left  their  impression  deeply  marked  upon  his 
doctrine.  The  course  of  this  historical  development 
we  must  now  proceed  to  recover  and  describe. 


BOOK    II. 

FIRST  PERIOD,  OR  PERIOD  OF  MISSIONARY 
ACTIVITY. 

From  i^^  to  ^i  A.D. 

PAUL'S  missionary  preaching  was,  unquestion- 
ably, the  earliest  historical  outcome  of  his  system 
of  belief.  It  occupied  a  period  of  nineteen  or  twenty 
years — the  longest  in  his  life,  but  also  that  in  which 
he  wrote  the  least ;  and  it  therefore  remains  com- 
paratively in  the  shadow. 

During  these  long  years  the  greater  part  of  Paul's 
apostolic  work  was  accomplished.  It  was  the  period 
of  his  great  journeys,  of  his  fairest  hopes  and  his  early 
successes.  Then  it  was  that,  in  Asia  and  Greece, 
he  conquered  for  himself  the  wide  sphere  of  which 
his  great  epistles  show  him  in  possession.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  during  this  time  he  wrote  but  little. 
There  was  no  occasion  for  it.  Oral  preaching  of 
necessity  everywhere  preceded  written  preaching ;  and 
the  work  of  founding  Churches  had  to  be  undergone, 
before  the  labours  of  their  edification  or  of  doctrinal 
controversy  were  possible. 

The  missionary  character  of  this  first  period 
naturally  determined  the  special  form  in  which  the 
apostle's  doctrine  was  cast.     It  cannot  be  doubted 


96  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


that  when  preaching  to  Jews  or  Pagans  for  the  first 
time,  he  presented  his  gospel  to  them  in  a  fashion 
essentially  different  from  the  learned  and  logical 
exposition  of  his  great  epistles. 

Those  who  refuse  to  recognise  the  true  Paul  except 
in  the  abstruse  dialectician  of  the  great  epistles,  forget 
that  he  was  a  missionary,  and  must  have  addressed 
himself  in  the  first  instance  to  women,  to  working 
men,  to  the  ignorant,  to  little  children — indeed,  to 
all  sorts  of  low  people  (i  Cor.  i.  28).  If  he  had 
spoken  to  them  as  he  afterwards  wrote,  he  would  not 
even  have  been  understood.  But  when  wc  find  this 
man,  meagre  and  feeble  in  appearance  as  he  was, 
-exercising  such  an  irresistible  ascendency  over  every 
one  who  came  near  him,  and  from  Damascus  to 
Rome,  wherever  he  sets  his  foot,  becoming  a  cause 
of  disturbance  and  popular  excitement,  can  we  doubt 
that  beside  his  powers  of  abstract  thought  and  logic, 
Paul  had  a  striking,  impressive  utterance,  and  set 
forth  his  faith,  in  the  first  instance,  under  a  very 
concrete  and  palpable  form?  It  was  then  that  he  laid 
the  historical  basis  upon  which  the  laborious  edifice 
of  his  religious  thought  was  afterwards  to  be  reared. 

His  doctrine,  therefore,  could  not  have  at  this 
time  the  dialectic  character  that  conflict  was  to  im- 
part to  it.  It  is,  as  it  were,  wrapped  up  in  itself, 
taking  shape  only  in  the  general  and  oratorical  form 
of  preaching.  Yet  it  does  not  remain  stationary' ;  it 
advances  all  the  while,  stimulated  in  its  progress  by 
success  and  fructified  by  experience.  These  years 
were  a  long,  obscure  period  of  gestation.  It  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  regretted  that,  for  the  purpose  of  tracing 
this  inner  progress,  we  have  not  more  numerous,  and 
especially  more  positive,  documents  belonging  to  the 


FIJ?ST  PERIOD.  07 


period.  But  is  not  that  an  additional  reason  for  try- 
ing to  turn  those  that  remain  to  us  to  better  account  ? 

After  the  fact  of  Paul's  conversion,  which  is  here 
our  secure  starting  point,  we  have  his  first  mis- 
sionary discourses  in  the  Acts,  an  indirect  echo  of 
his  preaching  no  doubt,  but  far  from  being  unfaithful. 
With  these  discourses  the  two  letters  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  are  in"  close  connexion  and  sequence,  resum- 
ing and  carrying  forward  their  teaching.  Finally, 
at  the  close  of  this  first  period,  we  have  the  discourse 
at  Antioch  addressed  to  Peter  and  the  Judaizers, 
which  has  been  preserved  in  the  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians  (chap.  ii.  15-21). 

These,  I  frankly  admit,  are  but  scant,  uncertain 
way-marks  on  a  very  long  road.  But  do  they  not 
form  a  progressive  and  ascending  series,  and  indicate 
unmistakably  the  general  direction  that  the  apostle's 
doctrine  naturally  followed,  under  the  pressure  of 
logic  and  of  circumstances  ? 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE   MISSIONARY   DISCOURSES    IN    THE   ACTS. — THE 
TWO   EPISTLES   TO   THE   THESSALONIANS. 

I.  Paul's  Discourses  in  the  Acts. 

THE  missionary  discourses  preserved  in  the  Acts 
are  three  in  number,  delivered  at  Antioch  in 
Pisidia  (xiii.  16-41,  46,  47),  at  Lystra  (xiv.  15-17), 
and  at  Athens  (xvii.  23-31).  The  first  was  addres.sed 
to  Jews  ;  the  other  two  to  Gentiles.  Do  these  dis- 
courses furnish  us  with  material  for  delineating  the 
apostle's  preaching  ? 

This  question  has  been  answered  in  different,  but 
for  the  most  part  in  equally  arbitrary  fashions.  Be- 
fore replying  to  it,  we  must  endeavour  to  gain  a 
definite  conception  of  the  preaching  itself  and  its 
contents.  We  can  do  .so,  I  think,  by  combining 
certain  scattered  indications  in  the  later  epistles, 
which  hitherto  have  been  neglected.  These  indica- 
tions will  furnish  us  with  a  sure  starting  point,  and 
moreover  with  an  excellent  standard  of  appreciation. 

Paul  himself  has  given  us  a  summary  of  his  apo- 
stolic preaching  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  : 
"  I  call  to  your  mind,  brethren,  the  gospel  that  I  have 
preached  unto  you,  which  ye  have  received,  and  in 
which  ye  stand  fast.  ...  I  delivered  unto  you 
that  which  also  I  received  :   above  all,  that   Christ 

98 


PAUL'S  MISSIONARY  PREACHING.  99 


died  for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures  ;  that  He 
was  buried  ;  that  He  was  raised  again  according  to 
the  Scriptures.  .  .  .  This  is  what  /  and  the  other 
apostles  preach,  and  what  you  have  believed"  (i  Cor. 
XV.  i-ii).  To  this  passage  should  be  added  the 
following  :  i  Cor.  xi.  23  ;  Gal.  iii.  i  ;  Rom.  ix.  4, 
5  ;  I  Thcss.  i.  10.  It  is  manifest  that  the  apostle's 
preaching  consisted,  above  everything  else,  in  a  recital 
of  the  passion,  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  with 
scriptural  arguments  designed  to  prove  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  and  that  in  Him  there  was  remission 
of  sins.  Affirmation  predominates  here  over  reflection, 
historical  facts  over  theological  ideas.  Paul's  preach- 
ing, in  its  general  character,  did  not  differ  essentially 
from  that  of  the  Twelve.  Prophecy,  it  appears,  was 
from  the  first  Paul's  grand  argument  in  debate  with 
the  Jews  (Rom.  i.  2  ;  iii.  21  ;  iv.  ;  Gal.  iii.) ;  and  the 
author  of  the  Acts  is  perfectly  correct  when  he  says 
that  the  apostle  in  the  synagogue  of  Thessalonica 
reasoned  with  the  Jews  from  the  Scriptures  {oltto  tcov 
ypa^cbv),  showing  from  them  that  Christ  must  needs 
suffer  and  rise  again  from  the  dead  (Acts  xvii.  2,  3). 
There  could  not  be  a  better  summary  of  Paul's 
preaching  in  the  synagogues. 

How  did  he  address  his  pagan  hearers  ?  The 
epistles  leave  no  doubt  on  this  point  either.  Accord- 
ing to  Romans  i.  18-23,  the  Gentiles'  chief  offence 
lay  in  allowing  the  idea  of  the  true  God  to  become 
obscured  and  lost.  With  their  religious  consciousness, 
their  moral  conscience  became  darkened  ;  still,  there 
remained  in  their  nature  some  gleams  of  light.  Their 
conscience  was  inwardly  disturbed,  accusing  and 
defending  itself  by  turns,  unable  to  find  rest  (Rom.  ii. 
15).     Here  it  was  that  Paul  evidently  found  the  basis 


100  THE   APOSTLE  PAUL. 


and  starting  point  of  his  appeals.  To  restore  the 
primitive  idea  of  the  one  invisible  God  by  showing 
the  vanity  of  worshipping  idols  ;  to  awaken  the  moral 
consciousness,  by  giving  it  a  foresight  of  the  zvratJi 
of  God  ready  to  punish  all  iniquity ;  to  renew  it  by 
preaching  repentance,  and  faith  in  Jesus  the  Saviour 
and  the  Judge, — such  must  have  been  the  apostle's 
first  and  constant  endeavour  when  in  the  midst  of 
heathenism  (i  Thess.  i.  9  ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16,  etc. ;  Eph. 
iv.  17,  18  ;  Rom.  i.  19 ;  ii.  16). 

When  we  compare  with  this  twofold  result  the 
missionary  discourses  put  into  Paul's  mouth  in  the 
Acts,  we  find  a  correspondence  sufficiently  exact,  at 
least  in  regard  to  their  fundamental  ideas.  These 
discourses  are  not  literal  reproductions  of  the  apostle's 
words ;  they  are  a  little  blunted  and  indistinct,  and 
too  much  resemble  those  of  the  other  preachers  ot 
the  Gospel.  In  drawing  up  the  discourse  at  Antioch 
in  Pisidia,  for  example,  the  writer  has  evidently 
Stephen's  address  and  Peter's  Pentecostal  sermon 
in  his  recollection.  But  to  infer  from  these  resem- 
blances that  the  addresses  in  question  are  merely 
free  compositions  and  have  no  historical  value,  is,  in 
my  opinion,  going  too  far.  Although  their  tenor  is 
very  general,  original  features  and  bold  and  novel 
ideas  are  not  altogether  wanting ;  and  there  are 
passages  in  which  we  distinctly  catch  the  inimitable 
accents  of  Paul's  voice.  It  will  be  well  to  analyse 
them  more  closely. 

The  discourse  delivered  in  the  synagogue  of 
Antioch  in  Pisidia  has  three  essential  divisions.  The 
first,  relating  the  history  of  the  Jewish  people  up  to 
the  time  of  David,  recalls  the  beginning  of  Stephen's 
address  (xiii.  16-23).     ^t  must,  however,  be  acknow- 


PAUVS  MISSIONARY  PREACHING.  loi 

ledged  that  if  it  presents  the  same  history,  this 
passage  exhibits  it  from  a  new  point  of  view.  It  is 
no  longer  the  people's  ingratitude,  but  the  idea  of 
the  promise  which  guides  Paul  as  he  proceeds  in  his 
course  across  the  wide  field  of  the  history  of  Israel. 
And  is  not  the  summing  up.  of  the  history  under  the 
idea  of  the  promise  an  essentially  Pauline  concep- 
tion ?  Besides,  we  find  that  Paul  makes  David  the 
terminus  of  his  historical  exposition,  instead  of  de- 
scending, like  Stephen,  to  the  time  of  Solomon  and 
the  temple.  For  it  was  from  the  family  of  David 
that  the  Messiah  was  to  come. 

Acts  xiii.  23.  Romans  i.  2,  3. 

'^QVTOV     o     0£j;     UTTO     Tov  ^Q  7r/30C7n/yyctA.aTO   Sia  tioi' 

aTrIp/xaTO<:  Kar  iirayyeXiav  TTpof^-qrCiv  ai'Tov,  .  .  .  irepl 
rjyayt  T<p  IcrpaJ)\  (miTrjpa.  tou  vlov  avTOv  tov  yivofxivov 
I^/crovr.  Ik     cnripixaTO^     Aa^SiS     Karu 

adpKa. 

A  more  novel  and  characteristic  Pauline  trait  is 
the  profound  distinction  made  in  regard  to  the  Old 
Testament  between  t/ie  law  and  the  promise, — the 
one  being  pronounced  impotent,  (ver.  39),  and  the 
other  realized  in  Christ  (ver.  32). 

The  second  part  of  the  discourse  (vers.  24-37)  shows 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  in  the  death  of  Jesus. 
Its  details  might  very  well  have  been  taken  from  the 
Third  Gospel  ;  though  it  will  be  observed  that  Paul 
says  nothing  about  the  Saviour's  public  labours.  He 
dwells  solely  on  three  points :  the  sufferings  and 
death,  the  burial,  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus, — that 
is,  on  the  very  points  which  are  emphasized  in  i 
Corinthians  xv.  3,  4.  Notice  above  all  the  reference, 
so  remarkable  in  this  place,  to  the  intermediate  event 


loa  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

of  the  burial,  which  has  no  importance  in  the  preach- 
ing of  the  other  apostles,  but  which  had  an  essential 
bearing  on  Paul's  ethical  conception  of  faith  and 
baptism  (Rom.  vi.  3,  4). 

The  Pauline  cast  of  thought  is  still  more  obvious 
in  the  third  and  subjective  part  of  the  discourse  (vers. 
38-41).  Certainly  we  do  not  find  here  as  yet  the 
theory  of  expiation,  nor  that  of  justification  by  faith  ; 
they  are  equally  wanting,  as  we  shall  see,  in  the  two 
epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  The  germ  of  these 
doctrines,  however,  is  present :  hia  tovtov  vfilv  a^eo-t? 
d/j,apTL(t}v  KarayyiWeTai,.  The  words  Sia  tovtov  do 
not  relate  to  KUTayyeXXeTai,  which  would  not  make 
sense,  but  to  d^€<Ti<;  ufxapTtm'.  Peter  had  said  at 
Pentecost :  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of 
you  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  for  the  remission  of  your 
sins."  There  is  much  more  implied  in  Paul's  phrase. 
The  remission  of  sins,  instead  of  being  connected 
with  baptism,  is  associated  here  with  the  death  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  in  and  through  which  redemp- 
tion is  objectively  realized.  It  is  also  at  the  same 
time,  a  complete  and  absolute  justification  :  koI  cnrb 
irdvTtov  Siv  ovK  'ij8vvi']dr}T€  iy  vofiu)  Ma)vaea)<;  Si/caio)- 
Brjvat,  iv  tovt(o  ira.'i  6  TrtaTevcov  SiKuiovTaL.  Justifica- 
tion by  faith  is  here  presented  in  its  negative  form. 
But,  as  M.  Reuss  has  remarked,  it  is  under  this  form 
that  the  idea  must  have  first  originated  in  Paul's 
mind.  The  passage  is  a  perfectly  just  expression  of 
the  experience  which  Paul  himself  had  made  of  the 
ineffectiveness  of  the  law.  Add  to  this,  that  it  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine  a  phrase  more  true  to  Paul's 
peculiar  style.  In  the  first  place,  the  very  singular 
grammatical  form  of  the  sentence  is  Pauline  (comp. 
Rom.   XV.    18),     Secondly,  its  terms   are   all   found 


PAUnS  MISSIONARY  PREACHING.  103 

amongst  those  most  characteristic  of  the  epistles : 
ySvi'/jdrjTe  ev  vo/xfo  (comp.  Rom.  viii.  3  :  to  dBvvaTOv  1  ov 
vofjLov);  8i,Kaio}$fjvaL  construed  with  a-Tro  (comp.  Rom. 
vi.  7) ;  and  the  general  and  comprehensive  phrase  Tra? 
6  TTiaTeiKov  (comp.  Rom.  i.  16  ;  iii.  22).  Lastly,  in  the 
whole  proposition,  iv  rovrw  ira<i  6  •ma-revcov  SiKaiovrai, 
the  words  iv  tovt(o  cannot  be  grammatically  related 
to  TTiarevcov — which,  however,  would  still  express  a 
Pauline  idea  (Gal.  iii.  26) — but  must  be  attached  to 
BtKaLovTai,  conveying  a  meaning  far  more  original  and 
profound  (comp.  Gal.  ii.  17  :  BiKaiQ)6i]vat  iv  Xpiaro)). 

Verses  46  and  47  mark  the  transition  by  which 
the  Gospel  passed  the  Jews  to  address  itself  to  the 
Gentiles :  "  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God 
should  first  be  spoken  to  you  (i/fxlv  i)v  dvayKucov 
irpoiTov  ;  comp.  Rom.  i.  16:  'lovBaiw  Trpdrov).  But 
since  you  reject  it,  and  judge  yourselves  unworthy  of 
eternal  life,  behold,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles."  This 
double  experience,  often  repeated,  of  the  obstinate 
unbelief  of  the  one  people,  and  the  receptiveness  of 
the  other,  gradually  created  in  the  apostle's  mind  the 
conviction  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  about  to  be 
transferred  from  the  Jewish  to  the  Gentile  nations, — 
a  conviction  entirely  opposed  to  the  hope  to  which  the 
apostles  of  the  circumcision  who  remained  in  Palestine 
fondly  clung.  Paul  was  the  instrument  of  a  new  and 
radical  evolution  of  God's  plan.  His  experience,  as 
it  widened  into  a  general  principle,  naturally  took  in 
his  eyes  the  shape  of  that  Divine  law  which  he  was 
afterward  to  interpret  and  formulate  in  the  ninth,  tenth, 
and  eleventh  chapters  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans. 
At  the  same  time,  he  gained  a  clearer  understanding 
of  his  special  vocation  as  apostle  to  the  Gentiles. 

A  vast  horizon  was  now  opening  before  his  eyes. 


104  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


As  the  heathen  world,  with  its  history  and  its 
destinies,  entered  more  and  more  into  his  thoughts, 
they  could  not  fail  to  gain  a  greatly  wider  scope. 
This  epoch  is  marked  by  the  two  discourses  of  Lystra 
and  Athens.  They  are  naturally  associated  together ; 
for  indeed  they  express  the  same  idea. 

These  two  addresses  being  more  original  than  that 
of  Antioch,  have  excited  critical  suspicions  to  a  less 
degree.  In  the  Athenian  discourse  especially,  so 
exquisite  in  rhetorical  style  and  so  admirable  in  its 
profundity  of  thought,  one  can  scarcely  refuse  to 
recognise  the  master's  touch.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  piece 
of  apologetics  of  a  new  order ;  and  there  is  nothing 
to  compare  with  it  either  in  preceding  or  in  following 
discourses. 

Paul's  preaching  no  longer  finds  its  starting  point 
in  the  Old  Testament,  but  in  the  moral  and  religious 
consciousness  of  humanity  (comp.  Rom.  i.  19). 

Acts  xiv.  15.  i  Thess.  i.  9. 

ciayyeAi^o/icvoi  .       .       .      Trois  iirecTTpiif/aTe 

v/xa?  (iTTO  TovTWV  Tu)v  fJuiTaLwv  7r/)os  Toi'  &eov  aTTo  tCjv 
i.TrL(TTpi<^uv  €7rt  ©eov  ^covra.  ciSwAtov    SovAei'eij'  0ew    ^uji'Tt 

Kai  aXyjOiviiJ. 

But  in  these  two  discourses  there  is  something 
beyond  the  general  notion  of  God,  which  belonged 
properly  to  Jewish  theology  much  more  than  to  Chris- 
tian teaching.  They  are  an  attempt  to  comprehend 
paganism  and  its  history  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
new  revelation  ;  they  are  a  sketch  of  that  philosophy 
of  history  which  the  apostle  was  destined  afterward 
to  complete.  Notice,  to  begin  with,  his  new  and 
profound  conception  of  paganism.  "  I  find  you,  O 
Athenians,  devout  to  excess.     Passing  through  your 


PAULS  AriSSFO.VARY  PREACHING.  105 

city,  and  looking  at  your  temples  and  altars,  I  have 
found  one  with  this  inscription,  To  the  unknown 
God  !  What  you  worship  in  ignorance,  I  come  to 
make  known  to  you  "  (Acts  xvii.  22,  23).  In  poly- 
theism thus  understood  Paul  could  have  no  difficulty 
in  finding  a  point  of  attachment  for  the  worship  of 
the  true  God.  That  paganism  which  the  Jews,  and 
Paul  himself,  were  accustomed  to  regard  as  a  pure 
negation  of  piety,  has  here  a  positive  value  assigned 
to  it  ;  and  is  in  this  way  brought  into  the  plan  of 
salvation  prepared  by  God  for  all  humanity.  The 
difference  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  is  reduced  to 
its  minimum.  God  has  made  all  nations  of  one  blood. 
He  is  not  the  God  of  the  Jews  alone,  but  also  of  the 
Gentiles  (Rom.  iii.  29).  His  providence  has  regulated 
the  destiny  not  only  of  Israel,  but  of  the  Gentile 
nations  as  well,  determining  the  place,  the  time,  and 
the  boundaries  of  their  earthly  habitation.  They  have 
walked  in  darkness,  it  is  true,  groping  their  way ;  but 
they  have  been  moving  towards  a  goal  fixed  b}'  God- 
Himself  In  the  Divine  plan,  the  history  of  paganism 
unfolds  itself  in  a  line  parallel  with  that  of  Israel,  and 
both  meet  at  the  cross  of  Jesus  Christ.  Thus  the 
universalism  of  the  new  Gospel  found  expression ;  and 
thus  was  formed  in  the  mind  of  Paul  that  great 
historical  plan  which  he  will  expound  in  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans. 

The  Athenian  address  was  interrupted,  and  its 
specifically  Christian  portion  remained  undeveloped. 
But  on  comparing  i  Thessalonians  i.  9,  10  and  Acts 
xvii.  30,  31,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  Paul  would  have 
confined  himself  to  the  assertion  of  a  few  very  simple 
ideas  and  essential  facts  :  the  necessity  of  repentance, 
the  imminence  of  the  last  judgment,  the  death  and 


lo6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  deliverance  from  the  wrath 
to  come. 

Such  was  Paul's  early  missionary  preaching.  If 
the  discourses  of  the  Acts  do  not  give  us  his  whole 
theology,  yet  they  mark  the  first  stage  in  the  develop- 
ment of  his  system.  The  experiences  of  this  epoch 
were  so  many  fertile  germs  out  of  which,  under  the 
influence  of  the  apostle's  intense  meditation,  a  rich 
harvest  of  profound  views  and  great  thoughts  would 
shortly  be  produced. 

II. 
The  Two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians. 

These  two  epistles  are  connected  with  the  dis- 
courses we  have  just  analysed,  alike  in  their  chrono- 
logical order  and  in  the  nature  of  their  ideas. 

It  will  be  noticed,  in  the  first  place,  how  readily 
the  two  letters  adjust  themselves  to  the  setting  fur- 
nished by  the  account  of  Paul's  second  missionary 
journey  in  the  Acts,  and  what  constant  harmony 
e.xists  between  them  and  it.  In  the  address  of 
both  letters  we  read  the  names  of  the  three  mis- 
sionaries who  appear  in  the  narrative  :  Paul,  Silas, 
and  Timothy  (i  Thess.  i.  i  ;  2  Thess.  i,  i).  Silas, 
moreover,  is  mentioned  before  Timothy ;  his  name 
ranks  second  in  the  epistles  as  it  does  in  the  Acts 
— a  fact  all  the  more  surprising,  inasmuch  as  Silas* 
name  only  occurs  once  besides  in  the  rest  of  Paul's 
epistles.  This  circumstance  is  inexplicable  on  the 
hypothesis  of  a  pseudo-apostolic  authorship  of  the 
two  letters ;  but  it  is  fully  confirmed  by  a  phrase 
in  the  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  also 
the  second  place  is  assigned  to  Silas  (chap.  i.  19). 

Furthermore,  we  gather  from  the  two  epistles  that 


PAUL'S  MISSIONARY  PREACHING.  M07 

Paul  arrived  at  Thcssalonica  from  Philippi,  and  that 
from  Thcssalonica  he  passed  on  to  Athens  (i  Thess. 
ii.  2  and  iii.  i  ;  comp.  Acts  xvii.  i  and  16).  We  find 
reference  made  in  very  precise  terms  to  the  ill-treat- 
ment that  he  and  his  friends  had  been  subject  to  at 
Philippi  :  TrpoiradovTe^  koX  v^pia-9ivT6'i,  Kad(6<;  oiBare, 
iv  ^tXiTTTroi?,  iirappTjaiacrd/ieda  Xakrjaai  Trpo?  u/ias  to 
evayyeXiov  rov  &eov  iv  ttoWS  ujcovl  (i  Thess.  ii.  2). 
This  boldness  and  great  eontention  answer  very  well 
to  the  account  of  the  Acts  (xvii.  1-9).  Again,  it 
appears  from  the  two  epistles  that  the  majority  of 
Christians  at  Thcssalonica  were  of  heathen  origin  ; 
and  this  is  just  what  is  said  in  Acts  xvii.  4  :  twv 
re  ae^oiJLevwv  'EW^jVcov  ttXjJ^o?  ttoXu,  fyuvaiKCJv  re 
Twv  irpdiTOiv  ovK  oXiyai.  The  Jews,  on  the  contrary, 
had  violently  opposed  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
and  having  rejected  it  themselves,  did  their  utmost 
to  prejudice  the  heathen  against  it  and  to  make 
Paul's  ministry  in  Thcssalonica  impossible  (Acts 
xvii.  5  ;  comp.  i  Thess.  ii.  15,  16).  These  statements 
remind  us  at  every  point  of  the  narrative  of  the 
Acts  :  nay,  the  phraseology  of  this  last  passage 
recalls  its  very  style  (eKSiioKeiv,  KoiXveLv  i^fiaq  roi? 
edv€at,v  \a\ija-ai  "va  acodcoaiv).  It  was  amid  affliction 
and  persecution  that  the  Christians  at  Thcssalonica 
received  the  Gospel  (Acts  xvii.  5  ;  comp.  i  Thess, 
i.  6  ;  ii.  14).  Finally,  these  persecutions  compelled 
Paul  to  remove  from  Thcssalonica  prematurely  and 
to  leave  unfinished  the  work  so  full  of  promise  which 
he  had  begun  there  (Acts  xvii.  10 ;  i  Thess.  iii.  1-5 
and  10:  KarapTiaai  to,  vareprjixara  Tf]<i  iricrTea)^  v^oiv)} 

*  This  very  striking  agreement  has  been  fully  brought  out  by 
Baur  in  his  Paulus,  vol,  ii.,  p.  97  [Eng.  trans.,  ii.,  85  ff.j.     He 


loS  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

On  the  other   hand,  the   whole   character   of  the 
two   letters   is  such  that   they  can   only  be   under- 

makes  use  of  it  as  an  "  unmistakable  '■  proof  that  the  author  of 
the  two  epistles  borrowed  their  historical  setting  from  the  Acts, 
and  at  the  same  time  imitated  the  style  of  that  narrative.  But 
it  is  surprising  that  a  writer  who  so  scrupulously  copies  the 
Acts  in  the  first  chapters  of  his  epistle  should  contradict  its 
statements  in  the  third  chapter,  making  Paul  and  Timothy 
meet  first  at  Athens,  when,  according  to  the  Acts,  they  only 
joined  each  other  at  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  5)  ;  though  here, 
according  to  Baur,  the  writer  no  longer  wished  to  imitate  the 
Acts,  but  the  epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  making  Timothy  go 
backwards  and  forwards  between  Athens  and  Thessalonica,  just 
as  Titus  between  Corinth  and  Ephesus  ! 

More  than  this,  in  the  second  edition  of  Baur's  Paiiliis  we 
find  two  opinions  respecting  the  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians 
which  present  a  flagrant  contradiction, — one  which  neither 
Baur  nor  M.  Zeller,  his  editor,  appears  to  have  noticed.  In  the 
body  of  his  work  [vol.  ii.,  pp.  85-88],  Baur  demonstrates  that  the 
author  of  the  two  epistles  was  acquainted  with  the  Acts  and 
imitated  its  style,  and  that  the  passage  in  i  Thess.  ii.  14-16 
had  no  other  source  ;  whence  it  is  easy  to  conclude  that  since  the 
Acts,  according  to  Baur,  cannot  have  been  written  before  120  or 
130  A.D.,  these  two  epistles  date  at  the  earliest  from  130  or  135 
A.D.  But  at  the  end  of  this  second  volume  is  a  dissertation 
in  which  Baur  adopts  Kern's  idea,  that  the  Antichrist  can  be  no 
other  than  Nero;  and  hence,  according  to  him,  one  of  the  two 
epistles  was  written  in  the  reign  of  Vespasian — Vespasian  being 
the  Ka.ri'j(isiv  who  delays  Nero's  return — and  the  other  after  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem  !  We  must,  however,  make  our  choice  between 
these  two  dates,  and  this  double  series  of  arguments.  One 
might  perhaps  say,  in  order  to  reconcile  them,  that  the  author  of 
the  two  epistles  had  before  his  eyes  the  very  journal  of  travels 
which  the  writer  of  the  Acts  afterwards  inserted  in  his  narra- 
tive, and  which  might  be  known  in  67  or  68  A.D.  Even  this 
would  not  remove  the  difficulty,  so  far  as  Baur's  exposition  is 
concerned  ;  for  beside  his  unwillingness  to  accept  the  idea  of  a 
journal  of  travel,  he  asserts  that  the  style  of  our  two  epistles 
is  strictly  moulded  upon  the  general  style  of  the  Acts. 


PAUL'S  mSSrON-ARY  PREACHING.  109 


Stood  in  this  historical  setting,  and  in  connexion 
with  this  period.  They  contain  nothing  either  of 
the  keen  and  profound  polemics  of  the  great  epistles, 
nor  of  the  lofty  speculation  belonging  to  those  of  the 
Captivity.  They  are  as  distinct  from  each  of  these 
groups  as  they  are  allied  both  in  form  and  substance 
to  the  discourses  of  the  Acts.  In  them  Paul  is  in 
truth  only  preaching  from  a  distance ;  he  continues 
and  completes  by  letter  his  oral  instruction.  Their 
originality  consists  just  in  this  practical  character. 
They  were  written  without  premeditation,  and  we 
must  not  expect  to  find  in  them  skilful  construction 
or  logical  divisions. 

The  traditional  division  of  Paul's  epistles  into  the 
dogmatic  and  the  hortatory  is  here  entirely  inap- 
plicable. Dogmatic  pre-occupations  are  altogether 
wanting.  The  doctrines  which  seem  most  insisted 
on,  those  of  the  parousia  and  of  Antichrist,  are  no 
exception  to  this,  for  even  on  these  two  points  the 
apostle  does  not  enter  into  any  theoretical  discussion ; 
it  is  a  practical  end  which  he  has  in  view  (i  Thess. 
iv.  13).  This  is  why  some  have  been  led  to  speak 
of  the  dogmatic  indifference,  or  neutrality,  of  these 
letters, — terms  which  are  both  alike  inappropriate, 
and  give  an  utterly  misleading  impression  of  the 
specific  character  of  these  brief  pages.  There  is 
nothing  tame  about  them,  nothing  vague  or  in- 
definite ;  on  the  contrary,  they  breathe  a  spirit  of 
strong  faith  and  overflowing  life,  and  above  all,  an 
ardour  of  hope  destined  before  long  to  be  extin- 
guished.^    They  give  a  first  sketch  of  Paul's  doctrine, 

*  [Subdued,  or  chastened,  we  admit ;  but  not  "  extinguished." 
On  p.  1 1 1  this  hope  is  spoken  of  as  "  transformed.''    Paul  never 


no  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

corresponding  with  that  primitive  period  when  it  pos- 
sessed all  its  vigour  without  having  as  yet  attained  its 
fulness.     Let  us  note  some  of  its  special  features  : 

I.  The  anti-Judaistic  controversy  which  char- 
acterizes the  great  epistles  has  not  broken  out,  or 
at  any  rate  has  not  as  yet  absorbed  the  apostle's 
attention.  It  is  entirely  absent  from  these  two 
letters.  The  contention  which  they  bespeak  is  of  a 
general  character  ;  it  is  the  warfare  that  the  great 
missionary  waged  against  both  Jews  and  pagans, 
the  same  that  is  found  in  his  discourses  in  the  Acts 
(l  Thess.  ii.  14-16).  ThearoTrot  koX  irovripoi  avOpcoTroi 
spoken  of  in  2  Thessalonians  iii.  2  are  not  Judaeo- 
Christians,  but  Jews  who  are  impeding  Paul's  work 
at  Corinth.  Again,  it  is  to  the  calumnies  of  the 
Jews  of  Thesssalonica,  or  elsewhere,  that  the  personal 
defence  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  first  epistle 
refers.  There  is  no  need  for  us  to  see  in  this  an 
artificial  imitation  of  passages  in  i  and  2  Corinthians, 
such  as  Baur  discovers.  The  apostle  is  not  so  much 
endeavouring  to  defend  himself,  as  to  present  his 
own  laborious  and  disinterested  life  for  an  example 
to  the  Church  at  Thessalonica  (chap.  ii.  9-12). 

2.  The  great  Pauline  antithesis  between  the  law 
and  faith,  having  no  existence  as  yet  in  these  two 
epistles,  we  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification  remains  undeveloped  and  is 
presented  there  under  a  very  general   form.      It  is 

ceased  to  look  forward  ardently  to  tlie  paroiisia  ;  though  at  a 
later  time  the  event  seemed  less  imminent,  and  death  came 
between  him  and  this  glorious  prospect.  See  Rom.  viii.  18,  ig 
(comp.  t  Cor.  i.  7);  Col.  iii.  4 ;  Phil.  iii.  20,  21, — to  say  nothing 
of  the  letters  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  See  further,  on  this  point, 
p.  379-] 


PAUVS  MISSIONARY  PREACHING.  iii 

the  same  with  the  doctrine  of  Redemption,  which 
is  unquestionably  connected  with  the  death  of  Jesus 
(i  Thess.  V.  lo),  but  in  a  decidedly  external  fashion, 
not  otherwise  than  in  the  missionary  discourses.  The 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  are  placed  side  by 
side,  but  their  inner  logical  connexion,  their  redemp- 
tive and  moral  significance  are  not  brought  to  light. 

3.  While  the  apostle's  Soteriology  is  scarcely  de- 
veloped, his  Messianic  Eschatology,  on  the  contrary, 
holds  an  important  place  in  these  letters.  This  is 
in  fact  their  characteristic  element,  and  gives  them 
their  peculiar  originality.  In  the  following  epistles  it 
will  be  gradually  transformed,  yielding  to  Soteriology 
the  place  of  honour  which  it  occupies  here.  At  the 
same  time  it  furnishes  another  essential  and  notable 
feature  of  resemblance  between  these  two  earliest 
epistles  and  the  discourses  of  the  Acts  (chap.  xvii. 
7,  31).  Paul  as  yet  had  not  advanced  far  beyond 
the  general  type  of  apostolic  preaching. 

The  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  it  is  evident, 
resemble  the  missionary  discourses  in  what  they  leave 
out,  as  well  as  in  the  special  points  on  which  they 
dwell.  Certainly  there  is  a  wide  distance  between 
these  vivid  pages  and  the  pale  reproduction  given 
us  in  the  Acts  ;  but  nevertheless  we  stand,  here  and 
there,  on  the  same  ground.  At  the  basis  of  the  two 
epistles  and  of  the  discourses  analysed  above  there 
lies  one  and  the  same  type  of  doctrine,  which  gives 
its  character  to  this  first  stage  of  Paul's  theology. 
This  we  must  endeavour  to  extract  and  define  more 
clearly. 


CHAPTER    II. 

PRIMITIVE   PAULINISM. 

PAUL'S  doctrine  in  its  primitive  type  is  quite 
simple,  and  was  organized  in  an  elementary- 
fashion.  Its  ideas  are  still  general,  and  their  logical 
connexion  is  not  always  apparent.  They  may  be 
completely  summed  up  under  these  two  heads  :  the 
Gospel  message^  and  the  parous ia. 

I. 

The  Gospel  {eva'^ykXiov  toO  Geov). 

In  common  with  Jesus  and  the  Twelve,  Paul 
designates  by  the  name  of  the  gospel  the  message 
of  salvation  that  he  bears  to  Jews  and  Gentiles.  It 
is  the  gospel  of  God,  because  it  is  God  who  sends  it 
and  who  is  the  Author  of  it  (i  Thess.  ii.  2,  8,  9)  ;  or 
again,  the  word  of  God,  X670?  tov  Qeov  (i  Thess.  ii. 
13  ;  Acts  xiii.  46).  It  is  the  gospel  of  Christ,  be- 
cause Christ  is  its  essential  content  (i  Thess.  iii.  2  ; 
2  Thess.  i.  8).  Again,  Paul  calls  it  ottr  gospel  [hia 
TOV  euajyeXi'ov  rjfxwv,  2  Thess.  ii.  14).  This  expres- 
sion, however,  has  not  as  yet  the  particular  shade 
of  meaning  that  it  afterwards  acquired  in  the  dis- 
cussion with  the  Judaizers  (to  evayjiXiov  fiov,  Rom. 
ii.    16).     Lastly,    salvation    being   the    end   of    this 


PRIMITIVE  PAUUNISM.  113 

Gospel,  it  is  further  called  6  \6709  tj}?  a-cDT-qpia'!; 
(Acts  xiii.  26  and  i  Thess.  ii.  16). 

There  can  be  no  question  of  the  Messianic  char- 
acter of  the  apostle's  early  preaching.  This  consti- 
tuted for  those  times  precisely  what  we  should  now 
call  the  religious  point  of  view.  The  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  began,  like  the  rest,  by  preaching  the  near 
approach  of  the  judgment  of  God  and  describing  "the 
wrath  to  come,"  in  the  fashion  of  John  the  Baptist 
{ofyyi]v  ipxo/^ei'ijv,  I  Thess.  i.  10  ;  2  Thess.  i.  8,  9  ;  Acts 
xvii.  31).  He  called  men  to  repentance,  and  to  faith 
in  Jesus,  by  whom  the  world  was  to  be  judged,  and 
by  whom  they  might  be  saved:  "God,  overlooking  the 
times  of  ignorance,  now  requires  that  repentance  be 
proclaimed  to  all  men  ;  for  He  has  fi.Kcd  a  day  for 
judging  the  world  in  righteousness  by  the  man  Jesus, 
whom  He  has  chosen,  having  raised  Him  from  the 
dead  "  (comp.  Rom.  ii.  16). 

At  the  same  time,  Paul  proved  that  the  promises 
were  realized  and  the  prophecies  fulfilled  in  Jesus  the 
Messiali  (6  XpL<jT6<i).  This  Messiah  is  far  more  than 
the  heir  of  David  ;  He  is  the  Son  of  God, — the  Lord 
(6  Kvpio<i).  This  last  name,  as  we  know,  is  the  one 
by  which  the  apostle  preferred  to  designate  Jesus. 
It  even  became  in  his  epistles  the  proper  name  of 
Christ  (comp.  i  Cor.  viii.  6).  It  iniplies  an  absolute 
sovereignty  over  man's  conscience,  over  the  Church, 
and  the  historical  development  of  the  world.  In  the 
Septuagint,  6  Kvpioq  is  specially  applied  to  Jehovah. 
This  name,  when  given  to  Jesus,  is  in  itself  an  inti- 
mation that  He  has  become  to  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness that  which  Jehovah  was  to  the  prophetical 
consciousness.  So  the  day  of  Jehovali  becomes  the 
day  of  the  Lord  Jesus  (i  Thess.  v.  2  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  2). 

8 


H4  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

In  some  few  passages  it  is  difficult  to  see  whether 
Kvpio'i  designates  God  or  Christ.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  in  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  that  the  Fatherhood  of 
God  with  regard  to  men  is  revealed  and  realized. 
Hence  the  formulze,  eV  &e(p  irarpl  koX  Kvploi  'Irjcrov 
Xpia-Tco,  0eo9  iraTTjp  rjfxwv  Kal  Kvplov  ^Irjaov  Xpiarov 
(i  Thess.  i.  I  ;  2  Thess.  i.  2),  which  continue  to  be 
characteristic  of  all  Paul's  letters. 

But  so  far  we  have  only  touched  on  the  more 
external  aspect  of  the  apostle's  doctrine,  and  that 
which  least  distinguished  it  from  the  preaching  of 
the  Twelve.  Underneath  these  general  forms  an 
intense  spiritual  life,  singularly  original  in  its  nature, 
was  all  the  while  developing  itself,  which  had  been 
called  into  being  on  the  very  day  of  Paul's  conversion, 
and  was  speedily  in  its  turn  to  give  birth  to  a  rich 
and  unique  system  of  dogmatics.  We  must  never 
forget  that  with  Paul,  in  truth,  experience  preceded 
system  and  feeling  theory.  What  is  really  Pauline 
in  these  two  epistles  is  the  spiritual  inspiration  which 
pervades  them.  If  we  do  not  find  here  the  same 
kind  of  reasoning  as  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  we 
have  the  same  modes  of  thought  and  sentiment,  the 
same  moral  experience,  and  the  same  specific  type 
of  Christian  life,  which  has  indeed  attained  already 
in  the  soul  of  the  apostle  a  richness  and  sublimity 
that  compel  our  admiration.  We  find  in  every  phrase 
that  full-charged  feeling  and  moral  weight,  and  that 
profound  intuition  of  spiritual  things  which  charac- 
terize the  style  of  his  great  epistles. 

The  fruitful  source  of  this  new  life  is  the  great  idea 
o^ grace  (x«7)t?  rov  Qeov,  2  Thess.  i.  12).  This  grace, 
actuated  by  the  Father's  eternal  love,  is  historically 
manifested  and  fulfilled  in  Christ,  and  is  also  called 


PRIMITIVE  PAUimiSM.  115 


the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (r  Thess.  v.  28).  It 
is  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  vocation  (/cX?}o-i<?) 
and  election  (iK\o>yj])  of  believers  (i  Thess.  ii.  12, 
i.  4).  Through  it  we  are  not  only  called,  but  also 
predestinated  to  salvation  and  to  life,  ovk  eOcTo  r]iJia<i 
6  &eo<i  et9  opjijv  uWa  et?  ■jrepiirotrjaiv  awTrjpia^  (l 
Thess.  v.  9 ;  comp.  Acts  xiii.  48).  These  are  the  earliest 
traces  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  The  effect 
produced  on  men's  minds  by  the  apostle's  preach- 
ing did  not  seem  to  him  fortuitous.  In  the  unbelief 
of  some,  and  the  faith  of  others,  he  saw  from  the  first 
the  consequence  of  a  fixed  determination  of  God 
(2  Thess.  ii.  13,  14 ;  comp.  Rom.  viii.  30). 

But  we  must  not  conceive  of  this  grace  as  external 
to  man,  as  though  it  were  an  arbitrary  gift,  a  domtm 
superadditinn.  It  is  an  active  force  {hvvafxi,s:)y  whose 
immanence  is  its  essential  characteristic, — a  regene- 
rative power  working  by  faith  from  within  out- 
wardly. Hence  the  Gospel  preaching  proves  to  be 
no  mere  succession  of  empty  words,  but  a  Divine 
energy  taking  possession  of  the  soul  of  the  believer 
in  order  to  renew  it  (^,070?  0eoO,  o?  koX  ivepyelrai  ip 
V/J.CV  TOi<?  TTKTTevovaiv,  I  Thess.  ii.  13 ;  i.  5).  The  essen- 
tial medium  of  this  power  of  salvation  is  Jesus  Christ, 
in  whom  we  live  and  who  lives  in  us  through  faith. 
The  Christian  life  is  thus  an  organic  creation,  having 
its  root  in  the  virtue  of  Jesus  Himself,  and  attaining 
its  development  and  completion  in  the  glory  of  the 
Saviour  (i  Thess.  v.  9,  10  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  13,  14).  Those 
who  are  dead  in  Christ  (ot  veKpol  ev  XpKnw)  are  not 
lost  ;  Christ,  in  whom  they  have  their  principle  of 
life,  will  raise  them  up.  Let  us  mark  well  this  moral 
dynamic ;    it    will    gradually    transform    the    Jewish 


Il6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

eschatology  which  Paul  inherited,  and  which  so  far 
he  has  done  little  more  than  reproduce. 

Lastly,  this   whole  Christian  life,   in    its  essential 
principle,  its  permanent  character,  and  glorious  end, 
has   already  found  expression   in   the   three   virtues 
which   gather   up  and    exhaust   it :  faith,  love,  Jiope 
(^lxv7)fiovevovre<i  vficov   rov  epyov  tj}?  iriaTeui^  Kal  rov 
KOTTov  \/;?  uyu7nj<;  Kal   t?)?   VTTOjJLOvr)<;  tt}?  e\7rtSo<?,    I 
Thess.  ir^ ;  comp.  v.  8;  2  TheS5.  i.  3,  4,  11;  ii.  13,  16  ; 
iii.  5).     The  work  of  faith  is  that  profound  change 
by   which   the  Thessalonians  turned  from    the  vain 
worship  of  idols  to  serve  the  living  God,  and  were 
consecrated  to  Jesus  Christ  (eV  ayiaaixw  Uvevfiaro^  Kal 
TTtcrei  akijOeia^,  2  Thess.  ii.  13).    By  this  consecration 
they  were  separated  from  heathenism  and  snatched 
from  all  its  defilements  ;  and  they  must  carry  it  out 
in  their  whole  life  and  being,  by  the  entire  sanctrfica- 
tion  of  spirit,  soul,  and  body  (dyidcrai  vfjLd<i  oXoTeXei'i, 
I    Thess.   V.    23).     But  this   destruction   of  the  old 
^r^  nature  is  the  consequence  of  the  new  life  in  them, 
the  essence  and  strength  of  which  is  love.     The  first 
duty  of  Christians  is  mutual  love  among  themselves 
(2  Thess.    i.   3).     This   mutual    love   is   the   love   of 
brethren,  for  all  Christians  form  one  family  (i  Thess. 
iv.  9).     It  should  further  extend  itself  to  all  men  (et? 
uX\i']\ov<;  Kal  €l<;  7rdvTa<i,  I  Thess.  iii.  12).     Christians 
must  not  return  evil  for  evil ;  according  to  God's  ex- 
ample of  love,  they  must  seek  the  good  of  all  (i  Thess. 
v.  15  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  5).     It  is  this  holy  labour  of  love, 
which  spends  and  wearies  itself  in  service  and  self- 
sacrifice,  that  Paul  describes  in  the  energetic  phrase 
/coTTo?  T?}?  dydirr)<;.     After  faith  and  love  comes  /io/>c, 
a  constant  source  of  joy  and  consolation,  even  in  the 
midst  of  the  darkest  and  severest  trials.    Hope  begets 


PRIMITIVE  PAULINISM.  1I7 


patience.  Rooted  in  Jesus  Christ,  Christians  are 
enabled  to  stand  firm  in  Him,  awaiting  His  speedy- 
coming  (aT7]Kr)Te  iv  Kvpio),  I  Thess.  iii.  8). 

Thus  the  apostle's  thought,  starting  from  eschato- 
logy,  returns  to  it  and  there  reaches  its  goal.  The 
Messianic  ideas,  in  short,  here  come  both  first  and 
last ;  they  supply  not  indeed  the  vital  principle,  but 
the  external  framework  of  this  early  Paulinism.  We 
must  now  examine  them  more  directly. 

1 1.      ESCHATOLOGV. 

It  is  an  apocalypse  in  brief  which  these  two  epistles 
set  before  us.  The  great  apostasy,  the  appearance  of 
the  man  of  sin,  or  Antichrist,  the  advent  and  victory 
of  the  Lord,  the  resurrection  and  the  Jucfgnicnt — 
such  are  the  successive  scenes  of  this  great  drama. 
Underneath  the  differences  of  detail  we  feel  the  pro- 
found analogy  of  this  eschatology  to  that  of  John. 
Fundamentally,  Christian  eschatology  in  the  apostolic 
times  followed  a  regular  course  of  development.  It 
is  not  so  richly  unfolded  here  as  in  the  Apocalypse, 
but  much  more  definitely  than  in  the  discourses  of 
Jesus  ;  it  is  at  an  intermediate  stage  between  these 
two  extreme  points  of  its  history. 

The  apostle  Paul  has  referred  no  part  of  his  teach- 
ing to  that  of  Jesus  more  expressly  than  his  escha- 
tological  doctrine.  What  he  says  on  this  point  is 
taught,  he  assures  us,  eV  Xo'yw  Kvpiov{i  Thess.  iv.  15). 
Indeed,  we  may  certainly  recognise  in  the  first  verses 
of  the  fifth  chapter  a  faithful  reproduction  of  some 
of  the  Master's  words.  Jesus  Himself  had  also 
spoken  of  the  outburst  of  evil  in  the  last  days,  of  the 
apostasy  of  a  great  number  of  believers,  and  of  the 


nS  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


appearance  of  false  Christs  and  false  prophets.  He 
had,  in  like  manner,  maintained  a  very  sober  reserve 
respecting  the  time  and  hour  of  the  Parousia,  simply- 
comparing  its  sudden  coming  to  that  of  a  thief  in 
the  night.  He  too  had  spoken  of  the  resurrection, 
of  the  assembling  of  all  the  faithful  with  the  Son  of 
man,  and  of  the  final  judgment  which  will  render 
unto  every  man  according  to  his  works.  Only,  in 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  there  is  found,  under  the  most 
material  images  borrowed  from  Jewish  apocalyptics, 
an  indefinable  inner  spirituality,  which  gives  them 
breadth  and  freedom,  and  invests  these  pictures  with  a 
symbolical  import.  In  the  apostolic  preaching,  on  the 
contrary,  these  ideas  become  set  and  rigid,  and  they 
fall  into  a  systematic  order  and  scheme.  It  could 
not  be  otherwise.  The  work  of  systematization  was 
carried  on  under  the  constant  influence  of  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  traces  of  which  are  easily  to  be  discerned 
in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  the  epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  and  the  Apocalypse  of  John  (2  Thess.  ii.  4 ; 
comp.  Dan.  xi.  36). 

The  end  of  the  world  will  be  brought  about  by 
God's  direct  intervention.  But  the  moment  of  this 
intervention  has  not  been  arbitrarily  chosen.  It 
depends  upon  the  historical  development  of  the  forces 
at  work  in  the  world.  And  for  that  reason  this  time 
may,  to  some  extent,  be  foreseen  and  calculated. 
Such  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Jewish  Apo- 
calypse. The  first  catastrophe  is  to  be  a  judgment, 
a  condemnation  of  the  power  of  evil.  That  which 
precedes  and  prepares  for  it,  therefore,  is  the  growth 
of  this  power  to  its  culmination  and  full  maturity. 
The  world,  in  fact,  must  become  ripe  for  destruction, 
the  sins  of  the  fathers  and  children  uniting  to  fill  up 


PRIMITIVE  PAULINISM.  119 


their  measure  (Matt,  xxiii.  32;  i  Thess.  ii.  16).  That 
is  what  Jesus  taught,  and  His  disciples  also.  In  like 
manner,  Paul  expressly  declares  that  the  end  cannot 
come  until  evil  has  attained  its  final  manifestation 
(j]  diroa-TaaLu  irpoiTov,  2  Thess.  ii.  3). 

This  power  of  evil  at  work  in  the  world  is  as  yet 
in  a  state  of  secret  ferment,  of  mystery  {to  fivcnrjpiov 
rf]^  avofiia'i,  2  Thess.  ii.  7).  But  it  will  break  forth 
violently,  incarnated  in  a  personality  who  will  serve 
as  its  medium, — t/ie  mart  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition 
(0  avdpcoTTos  tt}?  afiapria^;,  6  vlo^  T779  aTTtuXeia?).  This 
personage  will  be  in  the  order  of  evil  what  the  person 
of  Christ  is  in  the  order  of  good.  He  is,  therefore, 
the  evil  and  anti-divine  principle  in  its  ultimate  reve- 
lation. As  God  came  into  the  world  in  the  person 
of  the  Messiah,  Antichrist  will  appear  as  the  radical 
and  absolute  negation  not  only  of  Christ,  but  of  God 
Himself  He  will  set  Himself  above  everything 
Divine,  and  will  make  His  throne  in  the  temple  and 
cause  Himself  to  be  worshipped  as  God  (2  Thess.  ii.  4). 

Whence  will  this  head  of  the  powers  of  evil  arise  } 
The  general  answer  is,  From  the  midst  of  heathenism ; 
so  the  epithet  avofio^  (ver.  8)  might  lead  us  to  think. 
But  this  adjective  is  used  here  in  an  absolute  sense ; 
it  is  not  the  man  without  law,  but  the  man  who 
knowingly  tramples  on  the  law,  who  is  the  conscious 
negation  of  the  law,  because  he  is  the  negation  of 
good.  The  two  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians,  as  a 
whole,  lead  us  to  suppose  that  in  Paul's  view  the 
Antichrist  who  will  enthrone  himself  as  God  in  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem  itself  in  place  of  the  true  Messiah, 
is  to  arise  out  of  Judaism.  Did  not  the  Jewish 
people  already  embody  for  him  the  fiercest  possible 
opposition  to  the  Gospel  ?     Those  dvdpwTtoL  aroiroi 


120  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

Kai  TTovTjpol  of  whom  the  apostle  complains,  were 
they  not  Jews  (2  Thess.  iii.  2)?  And,  finally,  is  it 
not  the  Jews  whom  Paul  describes  as  hostile  to  the 
human  race,  constantly  multiplying  their  sins,  filling 
up  the  measure  of  their  iniquities,  and  ready  for 
destruction  by  the  Divine  wrath  (i  Thess.  ii.  15,  16)? 
Antichrist,  therefore,  is  not  Nero,  nor  any  other 
Roman  Emperor ;  he  is  the  representative  of  the 
Jewish  revolution,  which  was  already  at  work.  The 
power  that  represses  it  and  prevents  its  outburst,  the 
KaTe-)((i3v,  is  the  Roman  government  which  maintains 
order.  Was  it  not  this  which  saved  Paul  at  Corinth, 
and  which  had  everywhere  saved  him  from  the  machi- 
nations of  the  Jews  ?  When  this  barrier  is  removed 
and  the  ideal  power  of  evil,  already  active  in  Judaism, 
shall  have  triumphed  and  in  its  transgressions  far 
surpassed  heathen  idolatry  (2  Thess.  ii.  4) — when  the 
king  of  evil  has  come — then  the  world  will  be  ripe  for 
judgment.^ 


'  A  renewed  e.vamination  of  these  passages  now  renders  us 
less  confident  of  the  Jewish  character  of  the  Antichrist  spoken 
of  in  this  much  controverted  passage.  The  apostasy  in  question 
seems  to  extend  far  beyond  the  limits  of  Judaism,  and  to  be  the 
outcome  of  a  general  and  hopeless  revolt  of  the  whole  world 
against  God  and  the  order  established  by  Him.  In  Daniel  xi. 
36,  the  passage  alluded  to  by  Paul,  the  king  who  blasphemes 
and  sets  himself  above  every  god,  becoming  the  symbol  of 
Antichrist,  is  a  heathen  king  ;  it  is  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
But  that  is  no  reason  why,  in  Paul's  belief,  the  avriKci/Acvos  of 
2  Thess.  ii.  4  should  be  a  Roman  emperor.  In  assuming 
a  deeper  moral  and  religious  significance,  the  type  has  lost 
much  of  its  political  character.  The  author  of  the  epistle,  as 
it  seems  to  us,  abides  by  the  prediction  of  Daniel,  and  leaves 
the  personality  of  Antichrist  indefinite,  precisely  because  this 
personality  did  not  as  yet  present  a  distinct  form  to  his  eyes. 


PRIMITIVE  PAULINISM.  121 


Thus  the  parousia  of  Antichrist  is  to  precede  and 
prepare  for  the  parousia  of  the  Lord.  The  latter 
will  be  a  splendid  and  decisive  triumph  over  the 
adversary.     At  a  signal  given   by  God,  Christ   will 

What  he  asserts  at  the  time  of  his  writing  is  the  existence 
of  a  wide  and  powerful  leaven  of  evil,  which  will  afterward 
have  its  incarnation  in  an  individual,  according  to  the  terms  ot 
Daniel's  prophecy,  but  which  at  present  works  in  an  impersonal 
form.  Hence  the  general  expression,  to  /xvoTT/piov  eVe/jyeiTai 
T^s  dj'o/tia?  (ver.  7). 

The  point  which  it  seems  essential  for  us  to  maintain  is  that 
the  author,  in  any  case,  clearly  distinguishes  the  Roman  Empire 
and  Emperor  from  the  personality  of  the  Antichrist  and  the 
part  which  he  plays.  Indeed  the  Emperor  is  regarded  as  the 
Kari)(Uiv^  and  the  Empire  as  to  ko-tI^v  {neuter) ;  i.e.,  as  the  power 
of  order  and  justice  which  as  yet  checks  the  outbreak  of  evil, 
and  delays  the  disclosure  of  the  mystery  of  iniquity  in  the  per- 
sonality of  Antichrist  and  in  the  world-wide  apostasy. 

At  a  later  time  this  distinction  between  the  Roman  Emperor 
and  Empire  on  the  one  hand,  and  Antichrist  on  the  other, 
disappeared  ;  and  not  only  that,  but  Rome  itself  became  the 
mystery  of  iniquity,  and  the  Emperor  in  person  figures  as  the 
Beast  in  the  Apocalypse  (Rev.  xiii.,  xvii. ;  comp.  i  Pet.  v.  13). 
This  identification  of  the  powers  that  we  here  find  contrasted, 
took  place  after  the  year  64  and  in  the  person  of  Nero.  But 
in  the  second  letter  to  the  Christians  of  Thessalonica,  the  Empire 
and  Emperor  are  still  regarded  as  the  beneficent  and  protecting 
powers  of  social  order.  Indeed,  Paul  here  entertains  exactly 
the  same  views  and  opinions  on  this  subject  to  which  he  gives 
expression  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  chap.  xiii.  1-6 :  (oorre 
6  drTiTa(ro-o/A£ros  r^  i^ovaia,  rrj  tov  ©cou  SLarayrj  av6i(TTr]K€V 
ol  yap  a.p^o\Tt<i  ovk  €io"t  ff)6Po<i  tw  u.ya6<Z  ^pyw,  dAAa 
Tw  KaKiZ  .  .  ,  ov  yap  eIkij  ryv  fid)^aLpav  (jiopii'  ®(.ov  yap 
StttKovos  ccrnr,  IkSikos  cis  upyijv  tuI  to  KaKov  TrpdcnrovTi. 

To  our  mind  this  correspondence  is  a  decisive  proof  that  this 
much-disputed  second  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  was  written 
before  the  year  64,  and  is  consequently  of  Pauline  origin. — No/e 
•written  by  the  author  for  this  edition. 


J 22  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

descend  from  heaven  with  His  mighty  angels,  as  He 
has  Himself  announced.  The  day  of  the  Parousia 
is  uncertain  and  unknown  ;  but  as  Jesus  had  appa- 
rently said  that  it  would  come  before  the  generation 
then  present  had  passed  away,  and  that  men  should 
watch  for  it  constantly,  Paul,  like  the  other  apostles 
and  all  the  early  Christians,  hopes  to  be  still  living 
at  the  time  (r  Thess.  iv.  15-17).  We  may  observe, 
n  passing,  that  this  declaration  would  be  very  strange 
if  these  two  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  had  been 
composed  after  the  apostle's  death  ;  since  the  forgery 
would  have  credited  Paul,  gratuitously,  with  a  hope 
that  was  obviously  falsified. 

The  Christians  who  have  died  will  rise  first,  and 
join  those  who  are  still  alive  ;  together  they  will  be 
caught  up  in  the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  descend- 
ing from  heaven,  and  will  be  for  ever  with  the  Lord. 
But  this  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  the  same  time  the 
day  of  judgment.  The  destruction  of  Antichrist  is 
nothing  less  than  the  first  act  of  this  judgment,  which 
will  also  bring  about  the  eternal  ruin  {o\&$po<i  ala}vio<i, 
2  Thess.  i.  8-10)  of  all  the  ungodly. 

We  meet  with  this  eschatological  doctrine  once 
more  in  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  wanting 
only  the  figure  of  the  Antichrist.  But  it  is  already 
in  course  of  transformation  under  the  influence  of  the 
principle  of  the  Pauline  gospel,  which  as  it  unfolded 
itself,  could  not  possibly  remain  confined  within  the 
very  narrow  lines  of  the  Jewish  Apocalypse.  The 
description  of  i  Corinthians  xv.  15-52,  which  by  its 
very  phra.seology  so  plainly  recalls  i  Thessalonians  iv. 
16,  is,  however,  sufficient  proof  that  the  eschatological 
hopes  which  we  have  just  set  forth  were  an  essential 
feature  in  the  earlier  phase  of  the  Pauline  doctrine. 


PRIMITIVE  PAULINISM.  123 

Such  then,  for  the  present,  is  this  early  type  of 
PauHnism, — still  closely  allied  in  its  general  concep- 
tion to  the  preaching  of  the  other  apostles,  but  bearing 
within  it  already  the  new  and  bold  ideas  to  which 
subsequently  it  gave  birth.  It  is  admirably  calculated 
to  serve  as  a  transition,  and  means  of  organic  con- 
nexion, between  the  apostolic  preaching  with  which 
Paul  set  out  and  the  independent  conception  of  the 
Gospel  to  which  he  afterwards  attained.  We  .shall 
now  see  the  true  PauHnism  take  shape,  under  the 
double  pressure  of  the  inner  logic  of  its  own  prin- 
ciples and  of  the  external  opposition  of  the  Judaizing 
party,  which  proved  a  still  more  effectual  stimulus. 


CHAPTER    III. 

FIRST     CONFLICTS     WITH     THE     JUDAIZIXG     CHRIS- 
TIANS.— THE   TIME  OF   CRISIS  AND  TRANSITION 

(Acts  XV. ;  Galatians  ii.). 

IN  order  to  understand  the  struggle  which  is  about 
to  begin,  we  must  revert  to  the  apostle's  conver- 
sion, and  note  carefully  the  new  course  into  which  it 
directed  his  mind  and  his  life. 

The  conversion  of  Paul  had  been,  in  point  of  fact,  a 
radical  negation  of  the  Jewish  principle.  His  apostle- 
ship  to  the  Gentiles  was  its  logical  consequence ; 
and  this  mission,  pursued  with  equal  boldness  and 
success,  was  the  practical  realization  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  beyond  the  sacred  limits  of  the  Jewish  people. 
If  during  this  first  missionary  period  Paul  does  not 
attack  the  authority  of  the  law  in  theory,  he  com- 
pletely ignores  it  in  fact,  and  carries  on  his  work 
without  the  least  reference  to  it.  The  very  name  of 
the  law  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  two  epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians.  Through  the  unexpected  progress 
of  his  work,  the  contradiction  of  Judaism  implied  in 
the  apostle's  faith  passed  from  this  inner  sphere  into 
the  general  life  of  the  Church;  it  expressed  itself 
in  actual  facts,  previously  to  its  being  dogmatically 
formulated. 

Meanwhile  the  Jewish  principle  on  its  part,  con- 

"4 


THE   CONFLICT  WITH  THE  JUDAIZERS.         125 


quered  and  negatived  as  it  was  in  the  soul  of  the 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles  and  in  his  ministry,  revived 
in  the  Jewish  Churches  of  Palestine  in  a  vigorous  and 
obstinate  form.  It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the 
old  principle  would  yield  to  the  new  without  conflict. 
The  astonishing  success  of  the  mission  to  the  Gentiles 
caused,  no  doubt,  more  embarrassment  than  pleasure 
at  Jerusalem.  The  old  Judaism  felt  that  its  venerable 
claims  were  in  jeopardy ;  and  it  could  not  maintain 
and  defend  them  without  endeavouring  to  enforce 
them  on  others. 

Let  us  define  clearly  the  great  question  which  now 
arises.  It  is  not  as  to  whether  Gentiles  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  kingdom  of  God  :  on  that  point 
every  one  was  agreed.  The  question  was,  Oti  what 
terms  were  they  to  be  admitted  ?  Was  it  necessary 
to  become  a  Jew  in  order  to  be  a  Christian  ?  Must 
one  pass  through  Judaism  to  reach  the  Gospel  ?  This 
was  the  point  at  issue.  Those  who  upheld  the  eternal 
claims  of  the  old  religion  would,  of  necessity,  impose 
circumcision  on  the  Gentiles  ;  for  it  was  only  through 
circumcision  that  they  could  be  materially  incorpo- 
rated with  the  elect  people,  and  become  members  of 
the  family,  of  Abraham.  Accordingly,  it  was  over 
circumcision  that  the  great  battle  came  to  be  fought. 

No  wonder  that  it  was  long  and  fierce.  Christianity 
and  Judaism  were  now  contending  for  their  existence. 
If  the  Gentiles  enter  the  Church  directly,  and  there 
obtain  through  faith  alone  the  same  rank  and  privi- 
leges as  the  Jews,  what  becomes  of  the  rights  of 
Israel  ?  what  advantage  has  the  elect  people  over 
other  nations  ?  Is  not  this  utterly  to  deny  the  abso- 
lute validity  of  Judaism  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if 
circumcision  be  imposed  on  the  Gentile  converts,  is 


126  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

not  that  in  itself  a  declaration  that  faith  in  Christ  is 
insufficient  for  salvation  ?  Does  it  not  reduce  the 
Gospel  to  the  position  of  a  mere  accessory  to  Mosaism? 
Is  not  this  to  deny  the  absolute  validity  of  the  work 
of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

Such  was  the  fundamental  question  that  Paul's 
missionary  successes  raised  amongst  the  Judaean 
Churches.  It  could  not  fail  to  create  a  profound 
division  of  opinion.  Up  to  this  time  Christianity 
and  Judaism  had  marched  hand  in  hand.  But  now 
a  choice  must  be  made.  The  Christian  Jews,  who 
belonged  more  to  Moses  than  to  Jesus  (and  there 
were  many  such),  were  prepared  without  hesitation 
to  stand  forward  as  the  ardent  champions  of 
threatened  Judaism.  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  natu- 
rally became  the  apostle  of  Christian  freedom.  To 
defend  the  independence  of  the  Gospel  was  to  defend 
his  own  work,  his  apostleship,  his  faith,  his  conversion. 
This  great  cause  became  his  personal  cause.  Betwixt 
the  two  parties,  the  Twelve  are  eclipsed.  They  appear 
full  of  anxiety  and  hesitation,  seeking  for  a  reconcilia- 
tion between  the  two  hostile  principles,  which  could 
not  be  other  than  precarious. 

The  first  conflict  seems  to  have  taken  place  upon 
Paul's  return  from  his  first  missionary  journey.  Cer- 
tain Pharisaic  Christians,  who  had  come  down  from 
Judaja  to  Antioch,  sought  to  impose  circumcision  on 
the  Gentile  converts.  "  If  you  do  not  submit  to 
circumcision,"  they  said,  "you  cannot  be  saved" 
(Acts  XV.  i).  They  alleged  the  authority  of  the 
Twelve  in  support  of  their  claims.  Great  was  the 
disturbance  they  excited,  and  violent  the  dispute. 
Paul  did  not  underestimate  the  gravity  of  the 
struggle  then  beginning.     The  triumph  of  these  new 


THE   COXFIJCT  WITH    THE  JUDAIZERS.  X27 

missionarIesi|icompromised  his  whole  work  ;  and  he 
was  keenly  distressed.  He  could  not  tell  what  were, 
at  the  bottom,  the  real  sentiments  of  the  apostles 
at  Jerusalem.  He  feared  that  a  scandalous  rupture 
would  be  caused.  The  right  course  to  pursue  was 
made  plain  to  him  by  a  revelation, — by  a  decisive 
illumination,  an  inspiration  full  of  assurance  and 
strength,  following  an  interval  of  hesitation  and  inner 
conflict  (Gal.  ii.  2).  He  will  go  up  to  Jerusalem  with 
Barnabas,  and  .set  forth  his  gospel  to  those  who  are 
accounted  pillars  in  the  Church  ;  he  will  rehearse  the 
triumphs  that  have  been  won,  and  the  hopes  that  are 
entertained  And  he  will  find  means,  if  it  prove  neces- 
sary, to  persuade  or  win  them  over  to  support  him. 
They  will  be  compelled  to  endorse  his  work,  and 
protect  it  from  the  attacks  of  the  intruders.  In  any 
case,  he  will  deprive  them  of  that  authority  from 
the  apostles  from  which  they  draw  their  credit  and 
strength  (Gal.  ii.  1-3). 

In  these  hopes  Paul  was  not  deceived.  The  essen- 
tial end  he  sought  was  gained.  The  revelation  he 
had  received,  and  upon  which  he  acted,  had  not 
misled  him.  The  Twelve  in  no  wise  supported  the 
pretensions  of  the  false  brethren.  Titus  was  not 
compelled  to  be  circumcised.  The  authorities  of  the 
Church  gave  Paul's  gospel  their  unreserved  approval, 
and  did  not  propose  to  add  anything  to  it.  They 
acknowledged  the  legitimacy  of  his  apostleship,  and 
gave  him  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  ;  so  that  they 
might  labour  together  in  the  work  of  God,  the  one 
party  among  the  Gentiles  and  the  other  among  the 
Jews.  They  even  requested  Paul  and  Barnabas  to 
bear  in  mind  the  poor  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  interest 
the  new  Gentile  Christian  Churches  on  their  behalf. 


128  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Twelve  could  no^  share  either 
in  the  boldness  or  confidence  of  Paul.  They  had 
other  hopes,  and  judged  things  from  a  totally  different 
standpoint  The  Gospel  might,  indeed,  have  a  partial, 
and  more  or  less  brilliant  success  among  the  Gentiles  ; 
but,  in  their  eyes,  this  was  quite  a  secondary  matter. 
The  main  and  chiefly  important  work  was  the  con- 
version of  the  Jewish  people,  who  were  to  be  the  first 
to  enter,  as  a  nation,  into  the  new  covenant  ;  then  the 
turn  of  the  Gentiles  would  come.  Therefore  they 
must  not  scandalize  the  Jews,  nor  break  with  Judaism. 
The  part  played  by  the  apostles  in  these  keen  de- 
bates was,  and  could  only  be,  that  of  conciliation. 
All  their  efforts  were  directed  to  bring  about  through 
these  deliberations  such  a  compromise  as  would  pre- 
serve unity  among  all  divisions  in  the  Church,  without 
placing  the  new  evangelical  principle  in  peril.  Hence 
the  equivocal  position  in  which  they  were  found 
throughout,  and  the  minor  part  they  pla}'ed  in  the 
history  of  these  great  struggles.^ 

The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  has  preserved  for  us  the 
material  result  of  these  conferences  in  the  form  of  a 
letter  addressed  by  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  to  the 
new  Gentile  Christian  Churches,  for  the  purpose  of 
re-assuring  and  pacifying  them.  Their  freedom  is 
recognised.  The  letter  is  no  more  than  a  recom- 
mendation of  observances  such  as  Paul  himself  en- 
joined and  the  Churches  already  practised ;  viz. 
abstinence  from  meat  sacrificed  to  idols,  from  blood, 

*  See  an  excellent  estimate  of  the  part  taken  by  the  Twelve 
in  LHistoire  de  la  tU^ologie  apostolique  of  M.  Reuss,  vol.  i.,  pp. 
306-329  [Eng.  trans.,  i.,  263-283]  ;  de  Pressense,  Hisioire  des 
trots  premiers  siecles,  vol.  i,,  pp.  457-474  [Eng.  trans.,  I'he 
Apostolic  Age,  pp.  1 2  5  - 1 4 1  ]. 


THE  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  JUDAIZERS.        .129 


from  things  strangled, — and  lastly,  from  fornication. 
In  other  words,  they  were  to  continue  within  those 
general  limits  under  which  the  Jews  received  prose- 
lytes into  social  communion  with  themselves.  These 
restrictions  occur  again  in  Paul's  epistles  to  the 
Corinthians,  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  While  it  is 
certain  that  the  two  parties  at  Jerusalem  came  at 
last  to  an  understanding,  it  is  equally  certain  that 
this  agreement  could  not  have  been  arrived  at  in 
any  other  way  or  upon  any  other  basis. 

This  solution,  it  must  however  be  said,  was  really 
no  solution  at  all.  It  might  have  some  effect  in  the 
sphere  of  practical  life  ;  but  it  left  the  question  of 
principle  untouched.  The  truth  is,  that  from  this 
time  it  was  no  longer  possible  to  arrest  the  conflict 
between  the  Christian  and  the  Jewish  principle.  The 
apostles  at  Jerusalem  showed  their  tact  and  wisdom, 
as  well  as  their  moderation,  in  not  entering  upon  it. 
Time  alone  could  bring  it  to  an  issue.  It  was  the 
dawn  of  a  religious  revolution,  whose  course  it  was 
useless  to  resist.  So  far  from  preventing  it,  the 
debates  and  resolutions  of  the  council  at  Jerusalem 
served  only  to  precipitate  the  struggle.  The  compro- 
mise then  agreed  upon  became  the  starting  point  and 
occasion  of  still  fiercer  and  more  serious  contest.  The 
two  hostile  parties  might  each,  indeed,  regard  it  as  a 
first  victory.  It  was  an  obvious  inference  for  Paul 
to  conclude  from  it  that  the  Gospel  has  abolished 
the  Law  for  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  his  adversaries  gained  an  equal  advan- 
tage. It  was  well  understood  that  the  decision  of  the 
council  only  affected  the  Gentiles  ;  and  that  the  Law 
remained  obligatory  for  the  Jews  who  continued  to 
form  the  nucleus  of  the  Church,  the  Messianic  com- 

9 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


munity.  In  relation  to  the  Jewish  Church,  therefore, 
Gentile  Christians  held  an  inferior  position.  They 
purchased  their  liberty  at  the  cost  of  their  privileges. 
They  became  \.\\q  prost'ljtes  of  the  gate  of  Christianity; 
they  remained,  in  fact,  at  the  door  of  the  kingdom. 
Thus  the  Judaizcrs  had,  seemingly,  an  equal  right  to 
claim  the  settlement  made  at  Jerusalem  as  a  first 
success.  It  furnished  them  with  an  excellent  vantage 
ground  for  a  new  campaign.  They  were  inevitably 
tempted  to  turn  these  proselytes  of  the  gate  into 
proselytes  of  righteousness.  This  persistent  antagonism 
soon  declared  itself  in  the  event. 

A  second  contest,  still  more  ^erious  than  that  at 
Jerusalem,  broke  out  at  Antioch  (Gal.  ii.  13,  ff.). 
This  event,  as  we  have  seen  [pp.  10,  11],  finds  its 
proper  occasion  on  Paul's  return  from  his  second 
journey,  at  the  end  of  the  first  and  the  beginning  of 
the  second  period  of  our  history-.  ^ 

In  the  vigorous  discourse  addressed  to  the  Judaizers 
and  summed  up  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  the 
full-grown  Paul  for  the  first  time  displays  himself, 
with  his  great  thesis  of  justification  by  faith,  his 
radical  negation  of  the  law,  and  the  irresistible  logic 
of  his  polemics.     The  crisis  now  reaches  its  height. 

Peter  on  coming  to  Antioch  had  eaten  with  Gen- 
tile Christians,  without  regard  to  the  precepts  of  the 
law,  which  were  in  danger  of  being  cast  aside  by  the 
Jewish  Christians  themselves.  But  just  then  certain 
emissaries  of  James  arrived,  who  protested  against  this 
apostasy  and  asserted  the  authority  of  the  law.  Peter 
was  unable  to  withstand  their  influence.  After  having 
sanctioned  Christian  liberty  by  his  example,  he  seemed 
to  condemn  it.  He  withdrew,  and  separated  himself 
from  the  Gentile  Christians  in  order  to  make  common 


THE   CONFLICT  WITH   THE  JUDAIZERS.         131 


cause  with  those  of  the  circumcision.  Many  other 
Christians,  and  Barnabas  himself,  were  drawn  into 
this  act  of  hypocrisy  ;  and  there  was  a  temporar}- 
revival  of  zeal  for  Judaism.  Paul  remained  firm 
and  faithful.  "  Seeing,"  he  says,  "  that  they  walked 
not  with  straight  foot  according  to  the  truth  of 
the  Gospel,  I  said  to  Peter  before  them  all.  If  thou, 
being  a  Jew,  livest  like  a  Gentile,  why  dost  thou 
compel  the  Gentiles  to  Judaize?  "  The  inconsistency 
of  Peter's  double  conduct  could  not  be  better  shown. 
But  Paul  does  not  stop  there  ;  his  argument  goes  to 
the  root  of  the  matter.  This  flagrant  inconsistency 
of  behaviour  arose  from  an  inner,  though  perhaps 
unconscious  inconsistency,  which  was  at  the  bottom 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Judaizing  Christians,  and  which 
Paul's  pitiless  logic  lays  bare  in  the  discourse  which 
follows  this  apostrophe.  All  equivocation  is  cut  short. 
This  is  the  overwhelming  dilemma  to  which  Peter  is 
shut  up :  Plither  faith  in  Christ  is  sufficient  in  itself 
— in  that  case,  why  ask  anything  more  from  the 
Gentiles,  why  glory  in  anything  besides  ? — or  else  it 
is  not  sufficient ;  but  if  not,  it  is  not  really  necessary, — 
and  we  Jews  were  mistaken  in  despairing  of  salvation 
through  the  law  and  in  having  recourse  to  faith  and 
the  death  of  Christ.  In  this  case,  His  death  was 
superfluous  and  useless  !  The  whole  discourse  centres 
in  this  dilemma. 

Paul,  from  the  first,  puts  himself  in  the  positioh 
of  the  Jewish  Christians  (^/xeU  <j>v(Tei  'lovSaloc) ;  he 
aims  at  .showing  the  radical  contradiction  existing, 
unawares  to  them,  between  their  professed  faith  in 
Christ  and  the  Jewish  claims  that  they  seek  to  im- 
pose on  others.  "  We,  who  are  Jews  by  origin  and 
not  Gentile  sinners  (ufiapTojXoC),  being  convinced  that 


1.32  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


man  cannot  be  justified  by  the  law,  if  he  continue  a 
stranger  to  faith  in  Christ, — we,  I  say,  have  also  be- 
lieved in  Jesus  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by 
faith,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law.  What  does 
this  mean,  if  not  that  our  conversion  to  Christ  is  with 
us  Jews  an  undoubted  proof  that  the  essential  means 
of  justification  lies  not  in  the  law,  but  in  faith  ?  For 
we  have  only  believed  in  Christ,  after  despairing  of 
the  law.  It  is  true  then  to  affirm  that  in  our  view 
also  no  flesh  can  be  justified  before  God  by  the  law." 
It  is  thus  that  Paul  was  led,  in  conflict  with  the 
Judaistic  opposition,  to  the  full  development  and 
definition  of  the  grand  thesis  of  his  theology, — viz. 
justification  by  faith  ;  and  to  apply  it  to  Jews  and 
Gentiles  alike,  without  making  any  distinction.  He 
asserts  and  logically  deduces  the  consequences  of  the 
fundamental  principle  he  has  now  arrived  at.  "In  the 
work  of  our  justification,  faith  in  Christ  is  therefore 
substituted  for  the  works  of  the  law.  In  seeking  to 
be  justified  through  Christ,  we  acknowledge,  by  that 
very  act,  that  the  law  is  ineffectual  to  this  end. 
Faith  in  Christ,  therefore,  implies  the  negation  of  the 
law  for  all." 

In  the  seventeenth  verse  the  objection  is  raised, 
which  Paul's  teaching  has  ever  since  continued  to 
provoke.  The  suppression  of  the  law  will  reduce  the 
Jews  to  the  rank  of  the  u/iaprcoXo],  the  Gentiles.  Sin 
will  no  longer  be  restrained  ;  and  if  Jesus  abolishes 
the  law.  He  becomes  the  servant,  the  minister  of  sin 
(comp.  Rom.  vi.  i).  Paul  is  not  content  to  reject  this 
conclusion,  as  he  does,  by  an  energetic  fiij  yivoi-o. 
"  So  far  from  that,"  he  exclaims,  "  it  results,  on  the 
contrary,  that  if  I  build  up  again  the  law  which  I 
removed  in  coming  to  Christ,  I  am  not  only  incon- 


THE  C0NFLIC7    WITH  THE  JUDAIZERS.         133 


sistent  w  ith  myself,  but  I  lose  what  I  have  gained  ; 
in  face  of  the  law  thus  restored,  I  find,  and  indeed 
constitute  myself,  a  transgressor  !  Of  necessity,  trans- 
gression is  revived  along  with  the  law  ;  and  the  death 
of  Christ  is  rendered  vain.  But  on  the  contrary, 
where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  also  no  transgression. 
The  truth  is,  that  through  the  law  I  died  to  the  law. 
I  have  been  crucified  and  condemned  by  the  law  with 
Christ ;  I  am  therefore  freed  from  the  law.  It  is  no 
longer  I  that  live,  it  is  Christ  who  lives  in  me  ;  and 
that  life  which  I  still  live  in  the  flesh,  I  live  not 
under  the  law,  but  by  faith  in  the  Son  of  God,  who 
has  loved  me  and  given  Himself  for  me."  Finally, 
gathering  up  this  profound  and  powerful  argument 
into  a  single  sentence,  he  declares,  "  If  righteousness 
comes  to  us  by  any  kind  of  law,  Christ  died  for 
nothing ! " 

Thus  understood,  the  discourse  which  Paul  has  con- 
densed in  this  brief  abstract  is  really  the  complete 
programme  developed  in  the  great  epistles.  It  not 
only  contains  all  the  essential  ideas  of  the  Pauline 
theology,  but  they  are  presented  already  in  the  same 
logical  order  in  which  we  shall  find  them  in  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans :  the  inability  of  born  Jews  and  of 
sinners  among  the  Gentiles  alike  to  justify  themselves 
by  their  works  ;  the  necessity,  identical  for  both 
parties,  of  believing  in  Christ ;  the  opposition  between 
justification  by  faith  and  justification  by  law ;  the 
abolishment  of  the  law  through  faith  ;  the  conception 
of  redemption  as  a  death  to  the  law  and  a  resurrection 
with  Christ,  resulting  in  the  glorious  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God — all  the  links  in  this  golden  chain 
are  found  here  in  their  organic  connexion.  The 
principle  implanted  in  Paul's  mind  on  his  conversion 


134  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 


at  last  yields  its  full  result.  The  germ  has  become 
a  mighty  tree.  We  have  passed  through  the  first 
period  of  Paul's  life  ;  and  we  enter  forthwith  on  the 


great  conflicts  of  the  second. 


BOOK    III. 

i 

SECOND  PERIOD;  OR,  THE  PERIOD  OF 
THE  GREAT  CONFLICTS. 

From  53  to  58  A.D. 

THE  discussion  which  took  place  at  Antioch 
seems  to  have  been  a  regular  declaration  of  war. 
From  this  hour  the  struggle  became  general,  and  was 
carried  out  on  both  sides  without  truce  or  restraint. 
The  Judaizing  opposition,  originating  in  Palestine, 
extends  and  breaks  out  everywhere ;  we  find  it  dis- 
turbing Galatia,  Ephesus,  and  the  Church  at  Corinth 
b}'  turns  ;  and  outrunning  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles 
himself,  it  gets  to  Rome  before  him.  The  Judaizing 
party  had  its  missionaries,  who  followed  in  Paul's 
track,  and  in  every  place  strove  with  embittered  zeal 
to  undermine  his  authority,  to  seduce  his  disciples, 
and  to  destroy  his  work  under  the  pretence  of  rectify- 
ing it.  It  was  a  counter-mission  systematically 
organized.  The  delegates  arrived  with  letters  of 
recommendation,  and  gave  themselves  out  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Twelve,  denying  Paul's  apostleship 
and  sowing  distrust  and  suspicion  of  him  everywhere 
by  their  odious  calumnies. 

With  the  apostle  this  was  a  time  of  bitter  expe- 
riences and  keen  distress.     His  letters  show  us  how 


136  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL, 


greatly  he  suffered  from  this  intestine  struggle,  from 
the  treachery  of  some  of  his  friends  and  the  fickle- 
ness of  his  most  beloved  Churches.  But,  we  hasten 
to  add,  without  these  great  troubles  we  should  never 
have  known  Paul  at  his  greatest,  nor  guessed  how 
tender  his  heart  was,  how  heroic  his  faith,  how 
vigorous  his  mind,  how  infinite  the  resources  of  his 
strong  and  supple  genius.  He  was  indeed  born  for 
conflict,  and  in  it  his  spiritual  nature  acquired  its  full 
maturity  and  developed  all  its  powers. 

Attacked  almost  simultaneously  at  every  point  of 
his  work,  Paul  does  not  shrink  from  the  contest ;  he 
redoubles  his  energies,  and  makes  himself  almost 
ubiquitous,  everywhere  confronting,  his  adversaries 
and  never  for  one  moment  doubting  of  victory.  For 
four  or  five  years  this  great  controversy  absorbed  his 
whole  thought  and  energy  ;  it  was  the  leading  fact 
which  dominated  and  distinguished  this  second  period. 
Our  great  epistles  are  the  issue  of  these  truly  tragic 
circumstances,  and  can  only  be  thoroughly  understood 
in  their  light.  These  epistles  are  not  theological 
treatises,  so  much  as  pamphlets  ;  they  are  the  crush- 
ing and  terrible  blows  with  which  the  mighty  com- 
batant openly  answered  the  covert  intrigues  of  his 
enemies.  The  contest  is  in  reality  a  drama,  which 
grows  larger  and  more  complicated  as  it  advances 
from  Galatia  to  Rome.  The  letters  to  the  Galatians, 
the  Corinthians,  and  the  Romans,  which  are  its 
principal  acts,  mark  also  its  successive  phases.  They 
are  in  close  connexion  with  each  other,  and  enable 
us  to  establish  a  twofold  progress,  both  in  external 
events  and  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle,  which  we  shall 
now  proceed  to  demonstrate. 


CHAPTER  I. 

TIIK   EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIANS. 

THE  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  the  earliest  of  the 
four,  enables  us  to  '.vitness  the  first  outbreak  of 
this  prolonged  struggle.  With  its  opening  words,  we 
are  in  the  midst  of  the  fray ;  and  from  beginning  to 
end  it  is  simply  the  apostle's  vehement  answer  to  the 
unlooked-for  attack  of  his  enemies.  It  would  be 
hopeless,  therefore,  even  to  attempt  to  understand  it, 
without  first  having  a  clear  perception  of  the  character 
of  these  Judaizing  teachers,  the  nature  of  their  con- 
tention, and  the  strength  of  their  arguments.  Upon 
these  points,  fortunately,  the  letter  itself  supplies  us 
with  all  necessary  information. 

The  Galatians  had  received  Paul's  earliest  preach- 
ing with  an  enthusiasm  and  gratitude  which  had 
touched  and  charmed  him  (Gal.  iv.  14).  Their  cor- 
diality had  been  maintained  throughout  the  apostle's 
sojourn  with  them  ;  and  he  had  carried  away  from 
Galatia  the  most  pleasing  impressions  and  the 
brightest  hopes.  When  therefore  he  heard  of  such  a 
speedy  defection,  his  astonishment  was  only  equalled 
by  his  distress  (Gal.  i.  6). 

What  is  it  that  had  happened  ?  After  Paul's 
departure,  there  had  arrived  in  Galatia  certain  men 
whom  he  only  chooses  to  designate  by  the  somewhat 
scornful  term  nvif,  qjtidam  (i.  7).     The  new  mission- 


138  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


aries  brought  to  these  young  societies  not,  as  they 
would  have  it,  another  gospel,  but  those  very  Judaic 
claims  for  which  they  had  already  pleaded  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  obtained  a  momentary  triumph  at  Antioch. 
They  supported  them  by  the  name  and  example  of 
the  Twelve,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  mother 
Church  in  Jerusalem.  The  apostles  whom  Christ  has 
ordained,  who  lived  with  Him  and  received  His 
directions  and  teaching,  live  and  preach  differently 
from  Paul.  Above  all,  it  is  not  true,  as  Paul  teaches, 
that  the  old  covenant  has  been  abolished  by  the 
death  of  Christ.  God  cannot  be  unfaithful  and  de- 
part from  His  promise  ;  nor  take  back  what  He  has 
once  given.  Now,  He  made  an  eternal  covenant  with 
Abraham,  and  promised  salvation  to  the  children  of 
Abraham  only.  The  word  of  God  remains.  So  far 
from  having  abolished  this  covenant,  the  death  of 
Christ  only  has  its  full  effect  and  actual  virtue  within 
the  covenant,  and  for  those  who  have  entered  into  it. 
Into  this  covenant  you  must  enter,  if  you  wish  to 
belong  to  the  true  Messianic  people.  Unless  you  are 
circumcised,  and  thus  become  children  of  Abraham, 
you  cannot  be  saved.     So  they  reasoned. 

Paul's  doctrine  and  that  of  the  Judaizers  may  be 
summed  up  in  two  assertions.  He  declared  :  "  The 
law  and  its  ceremonies  are  nothing  without  the  cross 
of  Christ,  and  nothing  to  the  believer  in  Christ." — 
"  The  death  of  Christ,  and  faith  in  Christ,"  they  re- 
plied, "  are  nothing  apart  from  circumcision  and  legal 
observance."  At  first  sight,  the  difference  between 
these  phrases  may  not  appear  great ;  at  the  bottom  it 
is  enormous.  The  first  proposition  is  the  negation  of 
Judaism  ;  the  second  is  the  destruction  of  the  Gospel. 

But  Paul's  adversaries  would  seem  powerful  indeed 


THE  EPISTLE   TO    THE   GALATIANS.  139 

when  they  pointed  out  that  his  teaching  ran  counter 
to  the  entire  Old  Testament,  and  to  the  most  solemn 
promises  of  Jehovah.  Nor  were  they  less  so  in 
quoting  against  him  the  example  and  teaching  of  the 
apostles  at  Jerusalem,  the  only  true  heirs  of  the  word 
of  Christ.  Finally,  they  must  have  succeeded  in 
shaking  the  apostle's  firmest  friends,  when  they  urged 
that  the  abolition  of  the  law  compromised  the  holiness 
of  God,  and  encouraged  sin  by  removing  the  barriers 
against  it ;  and  when  they  showed  that  this  so-called 
Christian  liberty  degenerated  into  a  license  that  no 
longer  had  either  law  or  limit.  The  doctrine  of  Paul, 
they  concluded,  is  the  subversion  at  once  of  all 
authority,  all  truth,  and  all  morality. 

But  this  radical  negation  of  Paul's  gospel  involved 
the  negation  of  his  apostleship.  The  discussion  of 
his  views  resolved  itself  inevitably  into  a  violent 
personal  attack.  Who  is  this  newcomer,  that  he 
should  set  himself  up  against  the  first  apostles,  and 
against  the  word  of  God  itself?  What  is  his 
authority  ?  He  has  not  seen  Christ ;  he  has  not  been 
made  an  apostle.  What  little  he  knows  of  the  Gospel, 
has  been  learned  from  the  Lord's  real  disciples  ;  and 
now  he  revolts  against  them  !  Why  does  he  separate 
himself  from  them  ?  Why  does  he  not  reproduce  their 
preaching  in  its  full  and  proper  form  ?  His  mission 
is  purely  extemporized  ;  and  he  has  constituted  him- 
self an  apostle  on  his  own  authority,  and  out  of  his 
mere  fancy.  He  claims,  no  doubt,  to  have  received 
revelations,  and  to  have  had  visions  vouchsafed  to 
him  ;  but  what  proof  have  we  that  his  assertions  are 
true?  Must  we  believe  it  on  the  strength  of  his 
word  ?  Besides,  how  can  these  mere  personal  revela- 
tions that  he  alleges  hold  good  against  the  traditional 


140  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

teaching  of  men  who  Hved  so  long  with  Jesus,  who 
saw  His  face  and  heard  His  words?  Is  not  this 
tradition  the  standard  by  which  we  must  test  every 
private  vision,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  it  comes 
from  God  or  from  the  Devil  ?  The  surest  proof  that 
the  new  apostle's  visions  are  nothing  but  falsehood  is 
that  they  contradict  and  subvert  the  true  doctrine  of 
Jesus  Christ.  His  assumed  independence  is  nothing 
but  culpable  audacity ;  his  gospel  is  a  mutilated 
gospel  ;  his  apostleship,  a  usurpation  ;  and  his  attack 
on  the  law,  a  sacrilege.  The  Galatians  must  beware 
of  him  as  an  enemy  ;  they  must  hasten  to  enter  into 
communion  with  the  true  Church  of  the  Messiah  by 
submitting  themselves  to  the  Divine  ordinances. 

What  an  impression  this  skilful  and  sweeping 
attack  must  have  made  on  the  fickle  minds  of  these 
Galatian  tribes !  The  new  teachers,  apparently,  had 
the  facts  on  their  side — the  external  tradition  of 
Christ  and  the  apostles,  and  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  gospel  of  Paul  rested  on  his  personal  testimony 
alone.  How  could  this  authority  counterbalance  that 
of  the  traditions  of  Jerusalem  ? 

Is  it  surprising  that  the  Galatians,  ready,  it  would 
seem,  for  all  novelties,  should  have  been  seized  with 
distrust  of  the  apostle,  and  have  eagerly  accepted  the 
7iew  gospel  ? 

But  Paul  was  not  the  man  to  abandon  the  .struggle. 
His  defence  ro.se  to  the  height  of  the  danger.  So 
far  from  weakening  the  force  of  his  opponents'  argu- 
mentation, I  conceive  that  his  logical  mind  has 
strengthened  it,  and  given  it  a  sequence  and  inner 
cohesion  that  it  probably  lacked  in  their  own  repre- 
sentation. It  may  be  reduced  to  these  three  essential 
points : 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  GALATIANS.  14I 

I.  They  deny  the  Divine  origin  of  his  gospel,  and 
the  independence  of  his  apostleship :  whatever  he 
knows  of  the  Gospel,  he  received,  they  say,  from  the 
other  apostles,  and  his  authority  must  consequently 
be  subordinated  to  theirs.  His  adversaries  may  even 
have  added  that  in  the  presence  of  the  pillars  of  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem  he  had  taken  care  not  to  assert 
his  empty  claims  (Gal.  ii.  1 1  ff.). 

3.  This  gospel  of  human  origin  is,  in  addition, 
false  in  substance  ;  for  it  destroys  the  law,  and  is  in 
flagrant  contradiction  to  the  Old  Testament. 

3.  This  gospel,  human  in  origin  and  false  in  prin- 
ciple, is  further  disastrous  in  its  practical  results.  By 
doing  away  with  the  law  it  removes  the  barrier 
between  the  elect  and  sinners  (dfxapTojXoC)} 

This  triple  attack  gives  us  the  actual  plan  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  enables  us  to  see  the 
strength  of  its  structure.  Paul  proceeds  to  take  up 
and  refute  these  accusations.  He  has  to  maintain 
the  independence  and  authority  of  his  apostleship, 
and  the  intrinsic  truth  of  his  gospel  ;  and  moreover  to 
explain  the  moral  consequences  ivhicJi,  logically  and 
in  point  of  fact,  resnlt  front  it.  Hence  the  three  main 
divisions  of  his  letter,  which  has  been  somewhat 
inadequately  divided  into  an  historical  (chaps,  i.,  ii.),  a 
dogmatical  (chaps,  iii.,  iv.),  and  moral  section  (chaps,  v., 
vi.).  These  three  parts  follow  each  other  in  logical  suc- 
cession. They  are,  in  fact,  the  three  essential  branches 
of  the  same  demonstration.  Perhaps  no  other  of 
Paul's  letters  has  such  a  powerful  inner  cohesion,  or  so 
much  unity  of  character.     Its  one  idea,  from  first  to 

'  See  Holsten,  op.  cit.,  Inhalt  utid  Gedankengang  iles  Briefes 
an  die  Gulatcr,  p.  241. 


142  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


last,  is  the  Gospel  of  faith,  ^\•hose  origin,  principle,  and 
consequences  are  explained  in  turn  and  in  progressive 
order.  The  refutation  of  the  Judaizers'  arguments 
becomes,  thanks  to  the  apostle's  dialectics,  the  lumi- 
nous and  triumphant  exposition  of  his  own  views. 

The  general  forms  of  thought  which  met  the 
requirements  of  the  apostle's  missionary  preaching, 
manifestly  could  no  longer  suffice  for  this  controversy; 
and  they  disappeared.  Paul's  belief,  in  all  its  distinct- 
ness, at  last  finds  trenchant  and  decisive  utterance. 
Its  whole  import  is  contained  in  the  following 
antithesis,  which  from  this  time  becomes  its  charac- 
teristic :  fust  ificat  ion  by  faith,  d.nd  Justification  through 
the  laiv ;  tilings  neiu,  and  things  old ;  the  flesh,  and 
the  spirit ;  the  time  of  bondage,  and  the  time  of  liberty. 
Paulinism  has  reached  its  transforming  crisis. 

I.  Paul's  Apostolic  Com.mission. 

When  writing  to  the  Thessalonians,  Paul  did  not 
in  his  superscription  give  himself  any  title.  The 
superscription  of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  on  the 
contrary,  is  exceptionally  solemn.  This  circumstance 
by  itself  shows,  from  the  outset,  the  change  that  had 
taken  place  in  the  apostle's  position.  He  now  asserts, 
and  with  remarkable  emphasis,  at  once  the  Divine 
origin  of  his  apostleship  (d7roa-ToXo9  ovk  air  dvOpconcov 
ovSe  Oi'  avdpcoTTOv,  aWa  Bta  ^Irjaov  Xpio-rov  Kol  0€ov 
irarpo'i),  and  the  essential  principle  of  that  Gospel 
which  it  is  his  business  to  preach,  and  to  defend 
against  all  opponents:  "Jesus,  delivered  unto  death 
for  our  sins,  according  to  the  will  of  God  our  leather  " 
(chap.  i.  4), 

Full  of  indignation  and  astonishment,  Paul  flings 
himself  eagerly  into  the  question  at  issue.     Verses 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  GALATIANS.  143 

6-10  lay  down  the  thesis  to  be  demonstrated  in  the 
epistle:  "I  marvel  that  you  should  have  allowed  your- 
selves to  be  so  quickly  turned  aside  from  Him  who 
called  you  in  the  grace  of  Christ,  to  another  gospel. 
— Another  gospel  ?  There  is  none.  The  fact  is,  there 
are  certain  mischief-makers  who  wish  to  pervert  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  But  if  any  one,  were  it  ourselves  or 
an  angel  from  heaven,  came  to  declare  a  different 
gospel,  let  him  be  anathema  I  I  have  said,  and  I 
repeat.  If  any  one  preach  a  different  gospel,  let  him 
be  anathema !  Am  I  seeking  to  commend  myself  to 
men,  or  to  God  ?  Or  am  I  seeking  to  please  men  ? 
If  I  were  still  trying  to  please  men,  I  should  not  be  a 
minister  of  Christ."  ^ 

After  this  exordium  ex  abntpto,  the  first  part  of  the 
epistle  immediately  begins,  and  extends  to  the  end 
of  the  second  chapter.  Paul  first  asserts  the  Divine 
origin  of  his  gospel  under  its  negative  form :  T/ie 
gospel  that  I  have  declared^  is  not  according  to  man. 
I  have  not  received,  neither  leartied  it  from  any  man  ; 
— then,  under  its  positive  form  :  /  Jiold  it  by  a  direct 
revelation  from  fesus  Christ  (chap.  i.  11,  12).  He 
proves  this  absolute  independence  of  his  gospel  by 
a  threefold  series  of  arguments,  which  fortify  each 
other  and  form  a  powerful  gradation. 

I.  Paul  insists  on  the  absolutely  miraculous  nature 
of  the  event  which  made  him  a  Christian,  and  an 

*  These  last  words,  taken  along  with  another  passage  in  the 
epistle  (v.  11),  can  only  be  understood  as  alluding  to  a  time 
when  Paul  adopted  a  conciliatory  policy  toward  certain  men  (the 
Judaizers),  and  made  certain  concessions  in  order  to  avoid 
giving  offence.  But  the  time  for  concession  is  now  passed.  The 
apostle  may  not  suffer  himself  to  be  checked  by  any  regard  for 
persons,  under  pain  of  becoming  himself  unfaithful  to  Christ. 


144  •  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

apostle.  It  was  in  the  midst  of  his  zeal  for  Judaism 
and  his  persecuting  fury  that  the  grace  of  God 
(eySd/CT^crei/  hia  Tti<;  j^apno'i  avrov),  which  had  set  him 
apart  from  his  mother's  womb,  took  possession  of  him. 
No  man  intervened  between  his  conscience  and  the 
Divine  call.  It  was  God  Himself  who  revealed  His 
Son  in  his  soul,  and  at  the  same  time  commissioned 
him  to  go  and  preach  Him  among  the  heathen.  This 
work,  begun  without  man's  agency,  was  also  com- 
pleted without  man's  participation  (ov  "rrpoaavedifiijv 
aapKl  KoX  aijjiaTi).  The  purpose  of  vers.  16-24  is 
to  insist  on  the  isolation  in  which  Paul  lived  :  he 
emphatically  declares  that  he  did  not  see  Peter  and 
James  until  three  years  after  his  conversion,  and  then 
only  for  a  few  days.  By  virtue  of  this  call,  which  was 
solely  of  God,  he  has  laboured  and  preached  as  an 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles  for  fourteen  years ;  and  with 
so  much  success  that  the  Churches  of  Judasa,  to  whom 
he  was  unknown,  glorified  God  nevertheless,  because 
His  grace  had  turned  a  persecutor  into  so  mighty  an 
instrument  for  the  extension  of  His  kingdom. 

2.  But  this  is  not  all.  Not  only  did  he  carry  on 
his  labours  as  an  apostle  for  a  long  period  in  absolute 
independence,  but  also  the  mission  entrusted  to  him 
by  God,  and  which,  to  be  sure,  needs  no  confirma- 
tion from  men  (however  great  and  influential  their 
position),  has  been  officially  recognised  by  the  apostles 
at  Jerusalem, — by  those  who  pass  for  pillars  of  the 
Church,  Peter,  James,  and  John.  They  gave  him  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship,  and  acknowledged  that 
while  Peter  had  received  the  apostleship  of  the  Jews, 
he,  Paul,  was  equally  entitled  to  the  apostleship  of 
the  Gentiles  (chap.  ii.  i-io). 

3.  Furthermore,  his  apostleship  is   so  entirely  in- 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATTANS.  145 

dependent  of  that  of  the  other  disciples  of  Jesus,  that 
on  one  occasion  he  was  enabled,  in  virtue  of  this 
Divine  vocation  and  the  authority  it  conferred  upon 
him,  to  reprove  Peter  and  recall  him  to  the  rii^ht  path, 
from  which  he  had  attempted  to  depart.  This  was 
at  Antioch.  He  went  so  far  as  to  condemn  Peter, 
because  he  was  to  be  blamed  ;  he  made  him  feel  both 
the  duplicity  of  his  conduct  and  the  inconsistency  of 
his  views  ;  he  succeeded  in  making  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  triumph  over  all  the  fears  and  scruples 
of  the  one  party,  and  the  opposition  of  the  other. 
He  solemnly  declared  on  that  occasion  the  truth  that 
he  preaches — vis.  that  no  flesh  is  justified  by  the  law, 
but  ever}'  believer  is  justified  solely  by  his  faith  in 
Christ,  l-'or,  he  insisted,  the  choice  must  be  made  : 
either  Christ  saves  us,  and  in  that  case  the  law  does 
not ;  or  else  it  is  the  law  that  saves,  and  in  that  case 
Christ  died  in  vain.  In  this  manner,  Paul  naturally 
passes  from  the  subject  of  the  origin  of  his  gospel  to 
its  exposition  and  the  demonstration  of  its  contents. 
So  the  first  leads  to  the  second  part  of  his  letter. 

H.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Gospel. 
This  threefold  demonstration  of  the  Divine  origin 

o 

of  his  gospel  has  wrought  upon  the  apostle's  own 
feelings.  The  truth  at  this  point  seems  to  him  so 
plain,  that  he  cannot  possibly  understand  the  defection 
of  the  Galatians :  "  O  foolish  Galatians,  who  then 
has  bewitched  you  ?  "  With  this  vigorous  apostrophe 
the  second  part  of  the  epistle  opens.  His  object  is 
now  to  show  the  intrinsic  truth  of  his  gospel,  and  its 
profound  harmony  with  the  Old  Testament. 

Without   doubt,  the   saying   of  the   new   teachers 
which  had  done  most  to  shake  the  Galatians'  faith 

10 


146  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

was  that  ancient,  ever  powerful  phrase  :  "  We  are  the 
children  of  Abraham  "  (comp.  Matt.  iii.  9).  Salvation 
belongs  to  the  elect  race  alone.  Now,  God  has  given 
in  circumcision  a  sign  by  which  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham are  to  be  known.  Those  who  are  without  it  do 
not  belong  to  the  people  of  God,  and  can  have  no 
share  in  their  privileges.  This  is  the  reasoning  that 
the  apostle  had  to  overthrow.  For  this  theocratic  and 
narrow  Messianism,  Paul  will  substitute  the  great 
universal  scheme,  the  spiritual  history  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  and  of  its  revelation  upon  earth.  To 
the  carnal  descent  from  Abraham,  he  will  oppose  the 
spiritual  and  only  true  filiation — that  of  faith.  He  will 
appeal,  in  his  turn,  to  the  promise  made  to  the  father 
of  the  faithful  ;  he  will  show  in  what  manner  salva- 
tion is  connected  with  it,  and  how  the  law  is  related 
to  it.  He  will  thus  reconstruct  the  genuine  tradition 
of  Israel ;  and  it  will  be  seen  whether  he  or  his 
enemies  are  its  true  representatives. 

We  can  now  understand  why  the  faith  of  Abraham 
plays  such  an  important  part  in  Pauline  theology. 
It  was  not  arbitrarily  that  the  apostle  chose  this 
example,  rather  than  another.  The  promise  made  to 
the  patriarch  was  the  common  basis  of  argument,  both 
for  Paul  and  the  Judaizers;  and  upon  this  promise  and 
its  accompanying  conditions  a  keen  debate  was  sure 
to  arise,  for  this  was  the  crucial  question.  The  whole 
discussion  turns  upon  this  first  point.  If  the  Law 
qualifies  and  limits  the  Promise,  it  is  plain  that  it  will 
continue  to  be  the  eterndl  condition  of  salvation.  In 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans  we  shall  find  Paul  returning 
to  this  example  of  Abraham,  intent  on  showing  that 
faith,  without  the  observance  of  the  law,  is  the  sole 
condition  implied  in  the  promise. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIAXS.  147 

He  appeals  here  at  the  outset  to  the  actual  fact  of 
the  conversion  of  the  Galatians — a  fact  which  was 
undeniable,  and,  in  his  view,  sufficient  of  itself  to 
overthrow  the  Judaizcrs'  vain  pretensions.  "  You 
have  been  converted  ;  you  have  received  the  Spirit, 
the  earnest  of  life  eternal,  the  pledge  of  your  adoption. 
Well,  I  ask  you,  was  it  in  consequence  of  the  works 
of  the  law,  or  through  the  preaching  of  faith,  that 
you  experienced  all  that  ?  Or  is  it  all  to  be  in  vain  ? 
— See  how  inconsistent  you  are  :  you  began  in  the 
Spirit,  and  you  would  finish  in  the  flesh  !  God  has 
wrought  in  you,  and  produced  through  His  Spirit  all 
the  fruits  of  the  new  life  :  do  you  not  see  then  that 
the  promise  made  to  Abraham  is  fulfilled  in  you 
through  faith,  and  that  the  true  sons  of  Abraham 
are  those  who  are  so  by  faith?  Through  faith  the 
promise  was  given  ;  through  faith,  and  not  by  the 
law,  it  is  fulfilled." 

Paul  now  comes  to  the  formulation  of  his  great 
distinction  between  the  law  and  the  promise,  which, 
in  the  first  instance,  he  contrasts  with  each  other.  So 
far  from  the  promise  being  fulfilled  in  and  by  the 
law,  they  produce  a  diametrically  opposite  effect. 
The  end  of  the  promise  is  blessing  (evXoyia) ;  and  the 
inevitable  effect  of  the  law  is  f/ie  curse  (KaTcipa). 
All  those  who  place  themselves  under  the  law  are 
under  the  curse  (utto  Kardpav  eiaiv).  Christ  placed 
Himself  under  the  law  and  became  a  curse  for  us,  in 
order  to  redeem  us  from  the  curse.  Wherefore  it  is 
in  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  in  the  law,  that  it  is  possible 
for  the  Gentiles  to  obtain  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
(chap.  iii.  9-14). 

This  reasoning  seems  unanswerable.  But  Paul 
further  urges  and  illustrates  it  by  a  comparison  drawn 


148  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


from  human  relationships  {Kara  avOpanrov  Xeyo)). 
When  a  man  has  made  a  testament,  nothing  can 
nullify  his  fixed  decree  ;  nothing  can  be  added  to  it. 
Now  a  testament  was  made  in  favour  of  Abraham's 
heir  (t&J  a-irepfiaTi  avrov).  The  promise  was  made 
to  his  seed, — that  is,  to  Christ.  The  law  which  came 
in  430  years  later  could  neither  abolish  nor  change  it. 
So  that  it  is  not  the  law  which  gives  us  our  title  as 
heirs,  but  the  promise,  the  free  gift  of  the  grace  of 
God. 

Hitherto  Paul  has  been  contrasting  the  promise 
and  the  law  ;  he  has  shown  that  the  law  brought 
about  a  state  diametrically  opposed  to  that  contem- 
plated by  the  promise,  whose  realization  it  was  bound 
to  seek.  But  it  was  not  enough  to  set  aside  the  law 
thus  absolutely  by  a  mere  negation  ;  its  positive 
value  must  also  be  understood  and  explained.  If  the 
law  is  contrary  to  the  promise,  of  what  use  is  it  ? 
What  part  was  assigned  to  it  in  the  Divine  plan  ? 
Why  was  it  given  ?  This  is  the  question  which  in- 
evitably meets  us  here  (rt  ovv  6  v6no<i;  chap.  iii.  19). 
The  apostle,  in  answering  it,  completes  his  demon- 
stration. The  following  verses,  which  contain  this 
answer,  are  the  most  important  and  the  most  difficult 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  They  furnish  the 
key  to  the  Pauline  theory  of  the  progress  of  Divine 
revelation.  But  they  are  concise  to  an  extent  com- 
pared with  which  the  style  of  Tacitus  is  prolixity 
itself     At  every  point  thought  defeats  expression. 

For  what  purpose  is  the  law,  it  has  been  asked  ? 
It  was  superadded  (TrpoaeTiOr])  as  .something  external, 
in  a  provisional,  temporary  sense  {axpt^  ov)  ;  and  that 
for  the  sake  of  transgressions, — which  is  to  say,  in 
prder   to  produce  and    multiply  transgressions  (twi' 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  GALA7IANS.  149 

irapa^do-ecov  ^a/jiv  Trpoaeredrj  —  o  v6/xo<i  irapuarfKOcv 
'iva  TrXeovciar}  to  TrapaTrreo/jLa,  Rom.  v.  20).  Thus 
transgression,  the  actual  realization  of  sin,  is  the 
primary  end  of  the  law.  It  is  an  essential,  but  transi- 
tory factor  in  the  development  of  the  plan  of  salva- 
tion. The  law  was  designed  to  carry  sin  to  the  height 
of  its  power  and  its  extreme  consequences  ;  it  had 
this  function  to  fulfil,  up  till  the  time  of  the  coming 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham — tv'^.  Christ — to  whom  the 
promise  had  been  made.  The  much  disputed  words 
which  follow  {SiaTay€i<i  Bt  ujyiXwv  iv  %ft/3t  /xealTov) 
are  still  part  of  Paul's  answer  to  the  question  pro- 
pounded. From  the  form  and  manner  in  which  the 
law  was  given,  Paul  infers  its  character.  The  apostle, 
as  Holstcn  rightly  perceived,  did  not  intend  by  these 
words  either  to  disparage  or  glorify  the  law,  but  to 
bring  out  its  intermediate  and  subordinate  character. 

Nothing  .shows  better  than  these  accessory  circum- 
stances that  the  law  was  not  an  end  in  itself,  not 
the  final  goal,  but  simply  a  means.  As  the  angels 
are  ministers  working  after  the  Divine  plan,  so  the 
law  is  a  minister,  working  towards  the  fulfilment  of 
the  promise  ;  given  by  the  hand  of  a  mediator,  it  still 
continues  to  be  a  mediator, —  a  middle  term  between 
the  promise  made  to  Abraham  and  its  fulfilment  in 
Christ,  designed  to  fill  up  the  interval  that  elapsed 
between  Abraham  and  his  heir. 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  yet  more  obscure 
twentieth  verse,  6  /iecr/TT/?  evo?  ovk  €(ttiv,  6  Be  Se6<t 
eU  ea-riv?  In  form  the  verse  is  a  syllogism.  The 
mediator  is  not  of  one  alone ;  but  God  is  one, 
therefore  the  mediator  is  not  of  God.  What  does  this 
mean,  if  not  that  the  mediation  to  be  accomplished 
by  the  law  has  nothing  to  do  with  God  ?     God  being 


ISO  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


ever  in  absolute  unity,  has  no  need  in  Himself  of 
any  mediation.  But  every  mediation  at  least  implies 
a  duality.  It  is  in  history,  and  in  humanity,  that  this 
mediation  has  to  be  accomplished  ;  where,  in  fact,  a 
duality  does  exist  between  the  Jeivs  and  Gentiles, 
which  has  occupied  the  whole  period  intervening 
between  the  time  of  the  promise  and  its  accomplish- 
ment. The  law,  which  multiplies  transgressions, 
places  Jews  under  sin  as  well  as  Gentiles  ;  it  con- 
stitutes them  sinners  like  the  Gentiles  ;  and  this  is  its 
function,  till  the  Redeemer's  coming.  The  law,  there- 
fore, is  not  contrary  to  the  promise  ;  for  in  reality  it  is 
intended  to  bring  about  its  fulfilment.  Neither  is  the 
reign  of  the  law  a  simple  interregnum,  or  parenthesis, 
but  a  necessary  factor  in  the  evolution  of  Divine 
grace.  The  law  is  an  active  agent  which  labours,  and 
with  full  success,  to  make  men  realize  sin  and  to 
bring  them  all  under  the  curse.  It  is  a  tutor,  a  peda- 
gogue, who  keeps  them  in  this  state  against  the 
coming  of  faith  (icppovpovfieOa  air/KeKXeicrfievoL). 

This  23rd  verse  has  often  been  misunderstood  ;  the 
words  icjipovpovfieda,  TraiSaywyof;,  etc.,  have  led  some 
to  believe  that  the  law  was  given  to  check  sin,  and 
so  to  lead  man  by  an  actual  progress  up  to  Christ. 
This  idea  is  not  at  all  Pauline,  but  the  very  reverse  of 
the  apostle's  real  doctrine.  The  law  has  only  one 
aim  :  to  multiply  sin  by  realizing  it ;  to  constitute  all 
men  sinners,  and  like  a  gaoler  to  guard  them,  shut 
up  under  sin.  Thus  the  law  brings  about  the  unity 
of  all  men  after  a  negative  fashion,  by  placing  them 
all  equally  under  the  curse.  Christ,  on  the  contrary, 
realizes  this  unity  in  a  positive  manner,  by  making 
all  men  alike  children  of  God.  "  In  Christ  there  is 
no  longer  Greek  nor  Jew,  nor  slave  nor  free,  nor  man 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIANS.  151 

nor  woman,  for  you  are  all  united  in  Him.  And  if 
you  are  of  Christ,  you  are  of  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
and  therefore  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  Such 
is  the  apostle's  conclusion  (chap.  iii.  29). 

To  sum  up,  the  law  is  neither  absolutely  identical 
with  the  promise,  nor  absolutely  opposed  to  it.  It  is 
not  the  negation  of  the  promise;  but  it  is  distinct 
from  it,  and  subordinate  to  it  Its  final  purpose  lies 
in  the  promise  itself  It  is  an  essential,  but  transi- 
tional element  in  the  historical  development  of 
humanity.  It  must  needs  disappear  on  attaining  its 
goal.     Christ  is  tJie  end  of  the  law. 

Thus  Paul,  in  opposition  to  the  theocratic  and 
national  Messianism  of  the  Judaizers,  succeeds  in  con- 
structing a  new  economy  of  salvation,  a  history  of 
redemption,  broad,  profound,  and  singularly  spiritual. 
It  attains  its  realization  in  three  stages — tJic  Promise, 
the  Lazv,  and  Christ.  The  first  and  last  terms  are 
identical  ;  the  law  is  the  intermediary  through  which 
the  promise  reaches  its  final  realization. 

A  further  comparison  suffices  to  set  the  apostle's 
idea  in  its  full  light.  Humanity  is  a  child,  who 
passes  first  of  all  through  a  period  of  minority.  Man 
under  the  law  is  a  minor  in  tutelage,  a  child  with  a 
pedagogue  who  simply  forbids  and  commands.  There 
is  no  difference  between  this  condition  and  that  of 
the  slave.  But  this  state  of  minority  cannot  last  for 
ever.  At  the  appointed  time  Christ  came,  to  proclaim 
that  the  human  race  had  attained  its  majority.  Man 
henceforward  is  freed  from  tutelage ;  he  is  the  heir  put 
in  possession  of  his  patrimony.  It  is  as  reasonable  a 
thing  to  seek  to  reduce  the  child  of  God  again  under 
the  law,  as  it  would  be  to  make  the  mature  man  return 
to  the  rudiments,  to  those  elementary  things  (^arroi^eia) 


15^  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

which  served  to  guide  his  youth.  Between  the  reh'- 
gion  of  the  letter  and  that  of  the  spirit  there  is  all 
the  distance  that  lies  between  childhood  and  maturity. 
Such  was  the  Divine  adoption,  the  liberty  and  spiritual 
manhood  which  the  apostle  came  to  declare  to  the 
Galatians,  and  which  they  had  received  with  so  much 
enthusiasm  and  gratitude.  Is  all  this  to  be  rendered 
vain  ? 

To  make  his  victory  complete,  Paul  sums  up  his 
exposition  once  more  in  his  admirable  allegory  of 
Sarah  the  free-woman  and  Hagar  the  bond-woman. 
The  children  of  the  free-woman  are  free  as  she  is  ; 
the  children  of  the  bond-woman  are  slaves  like  their 
mother.  The  true  heir  is  not  Ishmael,  the  purely 
carnal  son  ;  it  is  Isaac,  the  spiritual  son,  the  child  of 
faith. 

III.  The  Gospel  in  its  Practical  Effect. 

This  allegory,  while  summing  up  the  second  part 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  is  also  the  transition 
which  leads  us  to  the  third  part.  The  goal  of  the 
apostle's  powerful  demonstration  is  the  idea  of  Chris- 
tian liberty,  so  that  this  last  section  is  no  less  essential 
to  the  structure  of  the  epistle  than  the  other  two. 
It  is  its  completion  and  necessary  conclusion.  The 
Gospel  of  faith  becomes  the  Gospel  of  freedom. 
Paul's  whole  discourse  centres  in  two  ideas  : 
I.  Christian  liberty  is  a  privilege  of  which  the 
Galatians  must  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  robbed. 
They  must  vindicate  it  against  the  attempts  of  the 
new  teachers,  who  would  re-impose  the  yoke  from 
which  Christ  had  freed  them.  "  I  Paul  declare  to 
you,  that  if  you  are  circumcised,  Christ  will  no  longer 
avail  you  anything"  (chap.  v.  1-12). 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE   GALATIANS.  153 


2.  But  this  liberty  must  not  be  used  as  a  starting 
point  or  occasion  for  fleshly  lusts  ;  it  asserts  itself 
only  that  it  may  in  turn  submit  to  the  law  of  love. 
"  Free  by  faith,  make  yourselves  slaves  by  love." 
Love  is  only  another  name  for  liberty  ;  and  liberty, 
so  far  from  overthrowing  the  law,  is  on  the  contrary 
the  sole  means  of  its  fulfilment.  For  the  law  is  ful- 
filled by  love  (vers.  13-15). 

Paul  does  not  stop  there.  He  wishes  to  show  the 
actual  consequences  of  his  doctrine.  To  admit  the 
principle  of  faith,  and  live  in  sin,  is  a  logical  impos- 
sibility. Here  we  have  the  first  outlines  of  the  moral 
psychology  which  is  developed  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans.  The  apostle  points  out  to  the  Galatians  the 
conflict  existing  in  every  man  between  the  flesh  and 
the  spirit,  one  in  which  the  law  of  good  is  always 
conquered  by  the  power  of  sin.  But,  he  adds,  the 
flesh  was  crucified  with  Christ,  so  that  the  believer 
is,  with  Christ,  dead  to  sin  ;  if  he  lives  henceforward, 
he  lives  by  the  new  Spirit  of  Christ.  By  a  necessary 
consequence,  he  must  no  longer  walk  according  to 
the  flesh  which  is  dead,  but  according  to  the  Spirit 
of  holiness  which  raised  Christ  from  the  dead  (chap, 
v.  16-26). 

Such  is  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  now  lying 
before  us  complete  in  its  three  divisions, — the  first, 
perhaps  the  most  admirable,  manifestation  of  the 
apostle's  genius.  There  is  nothing  in  ancient  or 
modern  literature  to  be  compared  with  it.  All  the 
powers  of  Paul's  soul  shine  forth  in  these  few  pages. 
Broad  and  luminous  views,  keen  logic,  biting  irony 
— everything  that  is  most  forcible  in  argument,  vehe- 
ment in  indignation,  ardent  and  tender  in  affection. 


IS4  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


is  found  here  combined  and  poured  forth  in  a  single 
stream,  forming  a  work  of  irresistible  power.  Its 
style  is  no  less  original  than  the  matter  of  its  ideas, 
and  has  in  truth  been  perfected  in  the  same  conflict 
which  matured  the  apostle's  thought.  Although 
Paul's  manner  is  discernible  in  the  two  epistles  to 
the  Thessalonians,  there  is  nevertheless  a  wide  dis- 
tinction in  character  between  those  two  letters  and 
the  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Here  the  true  Pauline 
type  reveals  itself,  in  its  bold  and  full  originality. 
The  celebrated  maxim,  The  style  is  the  man,  was 
never  better  verified. 

Paul's  language  is  his  living  image.  There  is  the 
same  striking  contrast  between  his  thought  and  its 
expression  as  was  presented  by  his  feeble  constitution 
and  ardent  spirit.  It  is  an  inferior  style, — poor  in  its 
external  form,  its  phraseology  rude  and  incorrect,  its 
accent  barbarous.  As  the  apostle's  body,  a  "vessel  of 
clay,"  yields  under  the  weight  of  his  ministry,  so  the 
words  and  form  of  his  diction  bend  and  break  beneath 
the  weight  of  his  thought.  But  from  this  contrast 
spring  the  most  marvellous  effects.  What  power  in 
weakness  !  What  wealth  in  poverty  !  What  a  fiery 
soul  in  this  frail  body  !  The  style  does  not  sustain 
the  thought,  it  is  that  which  sustains  the  style,  giving 
to  it  its  force,  its  life  and  beauty.  Thought  presses 
on — overcharged,  breathless  and  hurried — dragging 
the  words  after  it ! — It  is  a  veritable  torrent,  which 
channels  its  own  deep  bed  and  rushes  onward,  over- 
throwing all  barriers  in  its  way.  Unfinished  phrases, 
daring  omissions,  parentheses  which  leave  us  out  of 
.sight  and  out  of  breath,  rabbinical  subtleties,  audacious 
paradoxes,  vehement  apostrophes  pour  on  like  surging 
billows.     Mere  words,  in  their  ordinary  meaning,  are 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  GALATIANS.  155 


insufficient  to  sustain  this  overwhelming  plenitude 
of  thought  and  feeHng.  Every  phrase  is  obliged,  so 
to  speak,  to  bear  a  double  and  triple  burden.  In  a 
single  proposition,  or  in  a  couple  of  words  strung 
together,  Paul  has  lodged  a  whole  world  of  ideas. 
It  is  this  which  makes  the  exegesis  of  his  epistles  so 
difficult,  and  their  translation  absolutely  impossible. 

From  a  dogmatic  point  of  view,  however,  the  epistle 
to  the  Galatians  is  after  all  no  more  than  a  pro- 
gramme. All  the  essential  ideas  of  the  Pauline 
system  are  indicated  in  it,  but  they  are  not  worked 
out.  It  is  indeed  a  masterly  sketch  ;  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans  turns  the  sketch  into  a  picture. 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE   FIRST   EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHIANS. 

BETWEEN  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the 
epistle  to  the    Romans   come  in   chronological 
order  the  two  letters  to  the  Corinthians. 

The  conflict  raging  in  Galatia  was  of  a  simple  and 
open  character.  It  was  the  flagrant  opposition  of  two 
contending  principles.  At  Corinth  the  struggle  was 
complicated  by  a  multitude  of  special  difficulties.  It 
is  less  dogmatic,  and  more  personal.  Paul's  enemies 
have  renounced,  or  at  least  concealed  their  preten- 
sions. They  do  not  raise  the  question  either  of  cir- 
cumcision or  of  the  law.  But  their  animosity  is  none 
the  less  fierce  for  being  more  secret.  It  raises  up  a 
crowd  of  practical  difficulties  in  the  apostle's  way,  and 
forces  upon  him  questions  of  the  most  grave  and 
the  most  delicate  nature,  through  which  his  authority 
is  covertly  assailed.  Hence  the  changed  character  of 
Paul's  polemics.  In  this  complex  situation  the  con- 
densed and  solid  argumentation  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Galatians  would  be  inappropriate.  He  has  not  now  to 
give  a  formal  refutation  of  error,  but  to  solve  a  variety 
of  practical  problems, — to  quell  disputes,  repress  dis- 
orders, and  disconcert  his  opponents'  schemes.  For 
this  task  he  needed  tact  equally  with  logic,  adroitness 

as  well  as  firmness.     Paul's  doctrine,  so  concentrated 

156 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHIANS.    157 

in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  is  here  expanded  in  a 
multitude  of  varied  applications.  The  stream  hitherto 
pent  in  spreads  itself  into  a  thousand  channels  ;  but 
it  flows  in  the  same  direction,  and  while  dividing 
becomes  enriched.  We  shall  see  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  how  at  a  later  period  all  its  streams  meet 
again  and  resume  their  broad  and  mighty  course. 

The  Church  of  Corinth  was  one  of  the  apostle's 
noblest  creations.  It  was,  as  he  says  himself,  the  child 
that  he. had  begotten  amid  many  sorrows  (i  Cor,  iv. 
9-15),  and  had  nourished  and  reared  with  tenderest 
love.  But  this  child  was  of  Greek  birth,  and  retained 
the  tendencies  and  temperament  of  its  race.  The 
quarrelsome  spirit  native  to  the  Greek  city  re- 
appeared in  the  Christian  Church.  The  new  faith, 
with  its  hopes  and  mysteries,  seems  to  have  stimu- 
lated the  hereditary  disposition  to  curiosity  and  subtle 
disputations.  In  this  town  of  Corinth,  with  its  mixed 
population,  so  wealthy  and  so  corrupt,  the  quest  for 
pleasure  and  sensual  enjoyment  was  combined  with 
intellectual  refinement.  At  that  period,  to  lead  a  dis- 
orderly life  was  called  to  Corinthianize.  On  reading 
the  descriptions  of  the  moral  condition  of  this  great 
city  given  by  pagan  writers,  we  are  no  longer  sur- 
prised that  the  little  Christian  congregation  in  its 
midst,  formed  probably  out  of  its  most  impure  ele- 
ments, was  tainted  in  some  degree  with  the  general 
corruption.  These  circumstances  account  for  the 
situation  of  the  Church,  as  it  appears  in  Paul's  first 
letter  to  the  Corinthians. 

Some  of  its  members  were  leading  disorderly  lives. 
One  of  them  was  actually  living  with  his  father's 
w  ife,  and  had  not  been  excommunicated.  There  were 
heated  discussions  about  divorce,  about  the  respective 


158  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

advantages  of  celibacy  and  marriage,  about  sacrificial 
meats.  The  celebration  of  the  Agapai  gave  rise  to 
scandals.  The  assemblies  were  stormy  ;  every  one 
was  eager  to  parade,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  the 
spiritual  gifts  that  he  claimed  to  possess.  Pride  and 
jealousies  flourished.  A  few,  more  refined  than  the 
rest,  did  not  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
Lastly — and  this  perhaps  was  the  most  serious  symp- 
tom of  all — the  Church  was  split  into  factions,  each 
taking  for  its  flag  the  name  of  some  preacher  of  the 
Gospel,  as  formerly  in  the  Greek  republics  the  citizens 
were  wont  to  rally  round  one  or  other  of  the  popular 
orators.  One  said,  I  am  for  ApoUos  ;  another,  I  am 
{or  Paul  \  another,  I  am  for  Cephas;  another  again, 
I  am  for  Christ  (i  Cor.  i.  10-12). 

What  is  the  real  import  of  these  disputes  ?  Were 
there  four  parties,  each  with  a  definite  and  settled 
constitution  ?  Certainly  not.  From  a  dogmatic  point 
of  view,  such  sects  could  have  had  no  raison  d'etre ; 
and  those  who  try  to  discover  one  are  obliged  to 
reduce  them  to  two  factions — that  of  Paul,  and  of 
Cephas.  But  it  will  be  observed  that  in  this  first 
letter  Paul  nowhere  combats  a  dogmatic  tendency 
opposed  to  his  own.  In  the  earlier  chapters  especially, 
his  condemnation  bears  on  the  mere  fact  of  the  dis- 
putes ;  and  indeed  he  throws  blame  on  his  own 
partisans  and  those  of  Apollos,  rather  than  on  the 
adherents  of  Cephas  (chaps,  iii.  4-9  ;  iv.  6).  Finally, 
he  places  Cephas,  Paul,  and  Apollos  on  the  same  level, 
as  so  many  servants  of  Christ  belonging  to  the  Corin- 
thians, but  to  whom  the  Corinthians  in  their  turn 
do  not  belong  :  "  Whether  Paul,  Apollos,  or  Cephas — 
all  are  yours  ;  you  are  Christ's,  and  Christ  is  God's." 
Here  is  order ;  and  here  is  unity.     If  Paul  had  been 


.     THE  FIRST  EPISTLE    TO   THE   CORINTHIANS.    159 

encountering  a  party  division,  or  a  conflict  similar  to 
that  in  Galatia,  how  could  such  a  mode  of  procedure 
on  his  part  be  explained?  It  is  a  vain  attempt  to 
seek  to  trace  out  these  four  parties,  especially  the 
Christ  party,  either  in  the  remainder  of  this  epistle  or 
in  the  second.^ 

In  fact,  the  language  of  chap.  i.  12  does  not  describe 
a  general  and  permanent  state  of  affairs,  but  a  momen- 
tary situation  which  very  soon  altered.  It  is  the 
beGrinnin<Tf  of  a  fermentation  in  which  all  the  elements 
are  still  mingled  and  contending  together  ;  the  Church 
was  seized  with  the  fever  of  Greek  democracy.  In 
such  rivalries  persons  play  a  more  important  part 
than  principles.  But  the  agitation  wonderfully  served 
to  facilitate  the  attempts  of  Paul's  antagonists.  The 
latter,  arriving  with  letters  of  recommendation,  brought 
with  them  a  new  leaven  ;  they  laboured  secretly  to 
effect  a  profound  schism.  Paul's  letter,  the  arrival  of 
the  Judaizing  teachers  (2  Cor.  iii.  i),  the  logic  of  prin- 
ciples, and  above  all,  as  we  shall  see,  the  affair  of  the 
incestuous  person,  led  to  the  separation  of  the  con- 
tending elements  ;  and  from  this  general  agitation 
there  were  evolved  two  parties  radically  opposed, — 
one  adhering  to  Paul,  the  other  to  the  Judaizers. 


'  Fauliis,  vol.  i.i  pp.  287  IT.  [Eng.  trans., !.,  269  ff.].  The  error 
of  Baur's  exegesis  of  i  Cor.  i.  10-12,  to  my  mind,  arises  from  the 
mistaken  idea  with  which  he  starts,  that  the  first  and  second 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians  imply  an  identical  situation  in  the 
Church.  But  it  is  obvious  that  in  the  interval  the  situation 
had  materially  changed,  and  that  for  the  worse.  The  four 
earlier  parties  had  speedily  disappeared,  and  given  birth  to  two 
that  were  dogmatic  and  essentially  different,— the  Pauline  and 
the  Judaizing  party.  It  is  this  progress  of  the  contest  at  Corinth 
that  we  have  endeavoured  to  make  evident. 


l6o  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Such  is  the  situation  afterwards  disclosed  by  the 
second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  But  the  agitation 
is  at  present  somewhat  complicated  and  undefined. 
Beneath  the  actual  disputes  Paul's  insight  detects 
unmistakably  a  greater  danger  ;  he  divines  a  secret 
hostility  to  his  gospel ;  indeed  he  throws  out  already 
a  few  words  here  and  there  in  the  nature  of  a  defence 
(chaps,  iv.,  ix.),  but  always  in  a  veiled  and  indirect 
manner.  It  is  the  interests  of  the  Church  for  which 
he  is  here  concerned,  and  in  a  general  way.  Farther 
on,  when  the  Judaizing  party  is  unmasked,  we  shall 
find  him  resuming  the  controversy  in  a  style  more 
ironical,  more  keen  and  penetrating  than  ever.  Such, 
it  seems  to  us,  was  the  course  of  affairs,  and  the 
progress  of  the  struggle  in  the  midst  of  the  Church 
at  Corinth. 

It  was  impossible  that  this  epistle,  addressed  to  so 
complex  a  situation  and  such  varied  needs,  should 
assume  the  systematic  and  logical  construction  of  the 
letter  to  the  Galatians.  The  apostle,  however,  has 
managed  to  group  into  a  few  great  divisions  the 
numerous  questions  presented  to  him,  and  has  im- 
parted some  degree  of  method  to  his  long  reply. 

His  letter  seems  to  fall  naturally  into  three  main 
divisions : 

I.  The  first  includes  the  general  questions  (chaps, 
i.-vi.).  Paul  reviews  the  state  of  the  Church,  setting 
it  in  a  decidedly  gloomy  aspect.  He  first  of  all  pro- 
tests against  the  internal  divisions  which  are  rending 
it  asunder  (chaps,  i.-iv.)  ;  against  the  scandals  which 
disgrace  it,  especially  the  crime  of  the  incestuous 
person  (chap,  v.) ;  and,  lastly,  against  the  habit  which 
the  believers  have  formed  of  carrying  their  law-suits 
before  heathen  tribunals  (chap.  vi.). 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE   TO    THE   CORINTHIANS.    i6r 


2.  In  a  second  group  of  questions  the  apostle 
distributes  the  inquiries  that  the  Corinthians  them- 
selves had  proposed  to  him  in  writing,  Trepl  Se  wv 
iypuyfrare  (chaps,  vii.-x.).  He  discusses  in  succession 
marriage,  celibacy,  widowhood,  divorce,  and  meats 
sacrificed  to  idols.  The  solution  of  all  these  diffi- 
culties is  deduced  from  a  general  principle,  which 
Paul  has  always  accepted  as  his  own  rule  throughout 
his  apostleship  (chaps,  ix.  and  x.),  and  which  he  lays  \ 
down  in  the  following  terms  :  A//  things  are  lawful,  \ 
but  all  things  edify  not. 

3.  Lastly,  after  disposing  of  these  general  questions, 
Paul  enters  more  fully  into  the  interior  life  of  the 
Church,  and  corrects  its  defects  and  errors,  proceed- 
ing by  a  well-marked  gradation  from  the  lighter  to 
the  more  serious.  He  deals  in  succession  with  the 
position  and  deportment  of  women  in  the  assemblies 
(chap.  xi.  1-16)  ;  with  the  disorders  which  disturb  the 
Agapae  (vers.  1 7-34) ;  with  spiritual  gifts,  their  diver- 
sity and  unity,  and  the  charity  which  excels  them 
all  (chaps,  xii.,  xiii.)  ;  with  the  gift  of  tongues  (chap, 
xiv.);  and,  finally,  with  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
(chap.  XV.).  He  adds  some  ajdvice  with  respect  to  the 
collection  for  the  saints  at  Jerusalem,  which  he  was 
organizing  in  all  the  Churches  ;  and  sums  up  all  his 
exhortations  in  the  words  so  full  of  vigour  :  "  Watch, 
stand  fast  in  the  faith,  be  manly  and  strong.  Let 
love  inspire  all  that  you  do"  (chap.  xvi.  13,  14), 

Such  is  the  order  of  this  first  epistle.     In  spite  of 
the  variety  of  questions  touched  upon,  a   profound 
unity  prevails  throughout  it.     Paul's  dialectical  mind,        \  , 
instead  of  stopping  short  at  the  surface  of  these  par-        j  ( 
ticular  questions  and  losing  itself  in  the  details  of  a 
finely  drawn  casuistry,  always  ascends  from  facts  to       \  | 

II 


162  THE  AFOSTLE  PAUL. 

principles,  and  thus  sheds  a  fuller  light  on  all  the 
difficulties  presented  to  it  by  the  way.  After  he  has 
carried  the  mind  of  his  readers  up  to  the  serene 
heights  of  Christian  thought,  he  sweeps  down  from 
this  elevation  with  irresistible  force  ;  and  each  solution 
that  he  suggests  is  simply  a  new  application  of  the 
permanent  and  general  principles  of  the  Gospel.  This 
epistle  exhibits,  as  one  might  say,  the  expansion  of 
the  Christian  principle,  as  it  spreads  into  the  sphere 
of  practical  affairs.  In  it  the  new  life  created  by  the 
spirit  of  Jesus  becomes  conscious  of  itself,  and  asserts 
its  unique  and  independent  character, — distinguished 
on  the  one  hand  from  the  Jewish  life  with  its  servi- 
tude, and  on  the  other  from  the  pagan  life  with  its 
license.  Our  modern  Christian  civilization,  with  its 
liberty  and  solidarity,  its  constant  demand  for  reform 
its  impulses  towards  progress,  its  delicate  charity  and 
scrupulousness,  its  inner  vigour,  and  its  ever  enlarging 
ideal,  is  all  here  in  the  germ.  A  great  revolution  is 
commencing.  Already  accomplished  in  individual 
souls,  it  begins  to  manifest  itself  outwardly  in  social 
and  domestic  relationships.  A  new  humanity  is  to 
issue  from  this  new  religion. 

Such  is  the  import  of  the  first  Corinthian  epistle. 
While  the  letter  to  the  Galatians  was  the  foundation 
of  Christian  dogma,  the  two  letters  to  the  Corinthians, 
signalizing  as  they  do  the  emancipation  of  the  regene- 
rate conscience,  are  the  beginning  of  Christian  ethics. 

Paul  has  clearly  formulated  the  essential  principle 
of  this  new  consciousness ;  it  is  the  Spirit  of  God 
Himself  immanent  therein  (i  Cor.  ii.  10-16).  This 
does  not  imply  a  mere  illumination,  or  a  sanctifying 
influence  ;  but,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  a  transformation  in 
the  substance  of  our  bein^.     The  Spirit  becomes  7/j, 


THE  FIRST  EPISTLE   TO   THE   CORINTHjANS.    163 

and  we  become  essentially  jt/zWA  This  Spirit  o\  God, 
itself  the  creative  power,  makes  of  us  a  new  creation 
( I  Cor.  ii.  1 2).  To  the  two  classes  of  men  thus  formed 
there  correspond  two  kinds  of  wisdom^  the  wisdom 
of  the  world  and  the  wisdom  of  God,  as  contrary  to 
each  other  as  flesh  and  spirit,  reason  and  folly.  The 
carnal  man  cannot  understand  spiritual  things  (fxtopia 
jap  avTw  ecTTiv).  The  wisdom  of  God  becomes  the 
folly  of  the  cross,  even  as  carnal  wisdom  is  nothing 
hut  folly  before  God  (chsi^.  i.  21-25). 

The  work  of  the  Spirit  within  us  is  twofold.  It  is 
first  of  all  negative,  setting  us  free  from  all  external 
dependence.  "  Where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is,  there 
is  liberty"  (2  Cor.  iii.  17).  "The  spiritual  man  judges 
all  things,  and  he  himself  is  judged  by  nothing" 
(i  Cor.  ii.  15).  But  this  liberty  is  at  the  same  time 
a  positive  virtue.  For  the  Spirit  is  love,  as  essentially 
as  He  is  liberty.  This  absolute  independence  becomes 
an  absolute  bondage  ;  for  it  is  an  independence  which 
enslaves  itself  through  love,  and  which  sacrificing 
itself  unremittingly,  by  each  sacrifice  finds  itself  en- 
larged. "  Free  from  all  things,"  cries  the  apostle,  "  I 
submit  myself  to  all,  in  order  to  gain  more  souls  for 
Christ"  (chap.  ix.  19).  The  liberty  of  faith  is  found 
in  the  bondage  of  love. 

From  these  principles  results  that  great  practical, 
eternal  rule,  which  cuts  short  all  casuistry,  and  which 
Paul  is  constantly  applying  :  All  things  are  lawful  for 
me,  but  not  all  things  are  expedient  (chap.  vi.  12).  It 
enables  the  apostle  to  make  the  logic  of  his  principles 
everywhere  triumphant  without  any  wound  to  charity, 
and  to  resolve  all  moral  questions  in  a  manner  in  the 
highest  degree  both  bold  and  delicate. 

On  one  point  only  the  apostle's  judgment  appears 


j64  the  apostle  PAUL. 


to  be  still  narrow, — I  mean  that  of  celibacy  (chap.  vii.). 
This  narrowness,  for  which  he  has  been  so  greatly 
blamed,  does  not  arise  from  a  dualistic  asceticism. 
There  is  no  dualism  to  be  found  in  Paul's  doctrine ; 
and  it  is  obvious  that  there  would  be  a  strange 
contradiction  between  the  asceticism  of  practice  sup- 
posed, and  the  broad  moral  principles  which  we  have 
just  expounded.  It  is  his  eschatological  views  which, 
in  this  instance,  check  and  trammel  the  apostle's 
reasoning  (chap.  vii.  29).  The  parojisia  is  imminent ; 
the  time  is  short ;  all  other  interests  fade  before  this 
immediate  future.  But  a  further  progress  of  thought 
on  this  subject  was  soon  to  take  place  in  Paul's  mind. 
Before  long  it  finally  shook  off  the  narrow  bonds  of 
Jewish  eschatology.  In  the  epistles  of  the  Captivity 
we  shall  find  that  he  has  arrived  at  a  wider  and  more 
just  appreciation^  of  marriage  and  domestic  life. 

['  From  what  has  been  said  it  is  clear  that  at  the  juncture 
marked  by  i  Corinthians  this  "wider  and  more  just  appre- 
ciation" would  have  been  out  of  place.  But  one  is  reluctant  to 
think  that  Paul  himself,  with  his  sympathetic  nature  and  Jewish 
training,  had  still  to  arrive  at  a  just  appreciation  of  marriage 
and  domestic  life.  At  the  same  time,  we  quite  admit  that  his 
appreciation  of  marriage  in  its  Christian  bearings  widened  in 
later  years.] 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS. 

NO  Other  of  Paul's  letters  is  of  equal  importance 
to  this  second  epistle  in  its  bearing  on  the 
history  of  his  inner  consciousness.  In  none  does  his 
personality  so  prominently  come  into  play  or  so 
spontaneously  and  fully  reveal  itself,  as  it  does  under 
the  pressure  of  the  bitte'r  experiences  and  cruel  griefs 
here  recounted.  It  is  easy  to  perceive  that  the  second 
epistle  bears  no  resemblance  to  the  first,  either  in 
tone  or  contents.  Manifestly,  it  arises  out  of  an 
entirely  new  state  of  things,  both  in  the  Church  of 
Corinth  and  in  the  apostle's  mind.  To  define  the 
relations  of  this  letter  to  its  predecessor,  by  recon- 
structing the  history  of  the  troubles  at  Corinth,  which 
had  now  issued  in  open  revolt ;  to  set  forth  the 
contents  of  the  epistle  ;  and  to  describe  the  evolution 
of  Paul's  religious  ideas  in  this,  the  most  critical 
period  of  his  life — such  is  the  threefold  task  which 
now  devolves  upon  us. 

I.  State  of  the  Corinthian  Church. 

The  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  affords  fur- 
ther evidence  of  the  keen  anxiety  which  the  Church 
of  Corinth  gave  the  apostle,  and  the  feverish  suspense 
which  had  made  him  long  for  the  return  of  Titus,  his 
•latest  messenger.     At  the  time  when  he  wrote,  the 

«65 


i66  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

storm  was  dispersing,  and  we  only  hear  its  final 
mutterings.  But  in  the  joy  and  gratitude  with  which 
Paul's  soul  overflows  there  linger  the  vibrations  of  his 
sorrow,  his  anger,  and  apprehension,  A  drama  has 
evidently  been  enacted  at  Corinth,  of  which  this  letter 
is  the  denotiement.     Can  we  retrace  its  course  ? 

Unquestionably,  this  very  serious  crisis  was  con- 
nected with  the  affair  of  the  incestuous  person,  whose 
excommunication  Paul  had  demanded  (i  Cor.  v.  3). 
But  the  view  of  the  subject  generally  taken  is  too 
narrow  and  isolated.  This  circumstance  could  not  by 
itself  have  led  to  the  far-reaching  effects  which  are 
now  apparent.  It  became  a  source  of  discord,  only 
from  the  opportunity  which  it  afforded  Paul's  adver- 
saries for  attacking  the  integrity  of  his  character  and 
the  authority  of  his  apostleship.  We  admit,  indeed, 
that  the  individual  referred  to  in  2  Corinthians  ii.  5, 6,  is 
identical  with  the  incestuous  person  designated  in  the 
first  epistle  by  the  same  general  pronouns,  o  toioOto?, 
and  Tt9.  But  he  appears  here  in  quite  a  different 
position.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  there  had  been  re- 
bellion on  his  part,  and  that  he  had  committed  out- 
rages against  Paul  (2  Cor.  ii.  5  and  10).  In  his 
manner  of  recalling  these  injuries,  we  recognise  the 
delicacy  of  the  apostle's  pen,  and  his  disinterested 
spirit  (et  hk  Tt9  XeXuvrT/Acev  ovk  i/Me  XeXinnjKev. — kuI 
yap  iyo)  o  Ke-)(apLarfiaL,  eX  ri  Ke'x^dpLa-fJiat  hi'  vfid<;  iv 
irpoadiiiTw  XpiaTov).  Nor  is  this  all.  Paul's  directions 
had  not  been  obeyed.  Discussions  had  arisen  on  the 
mode  of  procedure  proposed  by  the  apostle,  and 
the  authority  to  which  he  laid  claim.  Instead  of 
the  unanimity  in  excommunicating  the  guilty  person 
which  he  had  expected  from  the  Church,  a  majority 
and  a  minority  had  been  formed  ;  and  when  punish- 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHIANS.    167 

merit  did    take   place,  it   was   only  decreed   by  the 
majority  (77  eVtTf/At'a  vtto  twv  -rrXeiovtov,  chap.  ii.  6). 

A  division  like  this,  on  a  point  of  discipline  so 
simple  and  obvious,  is  matter  for  astonishment.  Is 
it  conceivable  that  the  minority  hostile  to  Paul 
approved  the  conduct  of  the  guilty  person  ?  We  know 
that  on  the  question  of  impurity  the  Jewish  Christians 
were  even  stricter  than  the  apostle's  partisans.  The 
cause  of  their  opposition  is  to  be  found  elsewhere. 

In  order  to  discover  it,  we  must  go  back  to  chap.  v. 
of  the  first  epistle.  "  I,  being  absent  in  body,  present 
in  spirit,  have  resolved  as  if  I  were  present,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  you  and  my  spirit  being 
assembled,  with  the  power  of  Jesus  our  Lord,  to 
deliver  such  a  man  unto  Satan,  for  the  destruction  of 
the  flesh,  and  the  salvation  of  the  spirit  at  the  day  of 
the  Lord."  What  did  Paul  mean  by  this  demand? 
Evidently,  he  was  thereby  exercising  his  apostolic 
authority  over  the  Church  of  Corinth.  He  was  con- 
voking a  general  assembly  of  the  Church,  over  which 
he  wished  to  preside  spiritually.  He  was  acting 
in  the  capacity  of  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  on  a 
level  with  the  Twelve,  assuming  to  himself  the  same 
rights  and  authority.  But  it  was  precisely  these 
rights  and  this  authority  that  his  Judaizing  adver- 
saries at  Corinth  disputed.  To  obey  his  orders,  under 
these  circumstances,  would  be  to  acknowledge  the 
very  thing  that  they  denied  him.  Now,  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  how  powerful  the  Judaizing  tendency 
represented  by  the  partisans  of  Cephas  and  Christ 
was  in  Corinth.  The  first  epistle,  without  openly 
combating  them,  seems  to  suspect  their  hostility  and 
secret  menaces.  Owing  to  the  affair  of  the  incestuous 
person  and  Paul's  claims,  that  which  in  the  first  in- 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Stance  was  only  a  discussion  on  the  merits  of  different 
missionaries,  had  speedily  become  an  ecclesiastical 
and  dogmatic  schism.  The  apostle's  letter  had  helped 
to  bring  on  the  crisis,  and  to  raise  the  main  question. 
Furthermore,  emissaries  had  arrived  in  the  interval 
from  Jerusalem  or  Palestine  furnished  with  apostolic 
letters.  The  report  of  the  violent  debate  between 
Paul  and  Peter  at  Antioch  had  got  abroad,  and  the 
opposition  to  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  had  become 
strengthened  and  defined.  How  could  his  adversaries 
accept  declarations  such  as  that  of  i  Corinthians  ix.  i, 
where  Paul  asserts  his  apostlcship  and  founds  it  on  his 
vision  of  Christ ;  or  those  of  chap.  xv.  i-ii,  in  which, 
while  calling  himself  the  last  of  the  apostles,  unworthy 
even  to  be  called  an  apostle,  he  adds  that  by  the  grace 
of  God  he  had  laboured  more  than  all  the  rest  ? 

We  see  how  a  wider  and  more  important  question 
became  involved  in  that  of  the  incestuous  person. 
Paul  was  accused  of  extravagant  boasting.  From  a 
distance,  said  they,  he  speaks  loudly  and  confidently  ; 
but  he  takes  care  not  to  come  to  Corinth,  for  his 
presence  is  ineffectual.  Contrary  to  all  reason  and 
justice,  he  is  usurping  apostolic  privileges.  He  is  not 
competent  for  such  an  office,  and  has  not  been  called 
to  it  (iKav6TT]<;,  chaps,  iii.  and  iv.).  His  wish  is  to  lord 
it  over  Christ's  heritage,  in  order  to  make  his  gain 
out  of  it  (chap.  xi.  7-12).  He  thinks  only  of  vexing 
and  destroying  them  (chap.  xiii.  8-10).  He  is  an 
intruder,  a  false  brother  among  the  Messianic  people, 
one  to  be  held  in  distrust  (chap.  xi.  21-23).  ^e 
understand  thus  why  it  is  that  the  whole  discussion  in 
this  epistle,  from  first  to  last,  turns  on  Paul's  apostolic 
authority.  He  himself  had  raised  this  question  in 
his  first  letter,  by  his  mode  of  dealing  with  the  case 
of  the  incestuous  person. 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHIANS.    169 


That  such  was  the  course  of  events  is  highly  pro- 
bable on  logical  and  intrinsic  grounds  ;  and  it  is 
further  apparent  from  all  that  occurred  between  the 
two  existing  letters,  and  from  the  satisfactory  way  in 
which  the  obscure  allusions,  so  numerous  in  the  second, 
are  thus  explained.  For  a  long  time  we  refused  to 
admit  the  existence  of  a  lost  letter  wTitten  between 
the  first  and  second  epistle.  A  new  study  of  the  text 
has  modified  our  previous  opinion,  and  we  consider 
that  there  was  a  letter  written  before  the  second 
epistle,  just  as  there  was  another  one  before  the  first ; 
so  that  the  apostle  must  have  written  at  least  four 
epistles  to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  of  which  the  second 
and  fourth  alone  remain  to  us. 

The  loss  of  the  third  is  the  more  to  be  regretted, 
because  it  went  to  the  very  root  of  the  conflict  at 
Corinth.  Paul  wTote  it  in  a  spirit  of  profbund  grief 
and  indignation,  that  dictated  stern  language.  He 
had  written  with  tears,  and  in  great  distress  of  mind  ; 
and  when  the  letter  had  gone,  he  went  so  far  as  to 
regret  some  expressions  which  were,  possibly,  ex- 
treme' (chap.  vii.  5-12).  What  effect  would  it  produce 
at  Corinth  ?  For  some  time  this  anxiety  seems  to 
have  left  him  no  rest.  It  was  on  this  account  that  he 
sent  Titus  immediately  after,  or  perhaps  at  the  same 
time,  to  watch  the  events  that  might  occur,  and  to 
re-establish  harmony  and  confidence  between  himself 
and  the  Church.  He  awaited  his  return  with  impa- 
tience, and  not  finding  him  at  Troas,  went  to  meet 
him  in  Macedonia.     It  is  evident  that  the  character- 


'  May  not  the  exaggerated  character  of  this  letter,  and  the 
kind  of  regret  which  Paul  has  expressed,  explain  why  it  has  not 
been  preserved  ? 


170  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

istics  of  the  letter  to  which  Paul  so  often  refers  in  our 
second  epistle,  do  not  properly  belong  to  the  first, 
which  is  highly  pacific  in  tone  and  calm  in  its  tenor, 
and,  on  the  whole,  kindly  in  feeling  towards  the 
Corinthians. 

In  the  first  epistle,  moreover,  Paul  commended 
Timothy,  his  earlier  messenger,  to  the  Corinthians 
(i  Cor.  iv.  17  ;  xvi.  10,  11).  Timothy,  who  was  still 
very  young,  had  not  sufficient  authority  to  allay 
the  storm  ;  he  was  overmatched  by  the  revolt,  and 
returned  to  tell  Paul  of  the  fresh  complications  that 
had  arisen.  At  the  beginning  of  the  second  epistle, 
we  find  him  with  the  apostle ;  but  it  would  be 
strange,  unless  some  letters  were  written  in  the 
interval,  that  Paul  says  nothing  of  his  return,  or 
of  the  anxious  tidings  he  had  brought.  It  is  Titus, 
on  the  contrary,  who  is  now  mentioned  ;  indeed  Paul 
speaks  of  him  only  to  the  Corinthians.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  question  the  existence  of  the  lost  letter,  to 
which  he  refers  more  than  once  (chap.  ii.  1-3  and  9) 
What  did  it  contain  ?  It  would  be  a  daring  thing  to 
attempt  its  reproduction.  We  do  not  consider  that 
M.  Hausrath,  who  thinks  he  has  found  it  in  the  last 
four  chapters  of  the  second  epistle,  has  been  happy 
in  this  hypothesis.^  But  the  vehement,  the  ironical 
and  impassioned  tone  of  these  last  pages  represents 
very  fairly,  I  believe,  that  of  the  lost  letter. 

We  may  add,  in  accordance  with  chap.  ii.  9  and 
chap.  vii.  7,  11,  13,  that  in  this  letter  Paul  gave  ex- 
press orders,  and  demanded  satisfaction.  Clearly, 
the  crisis  was  a  serious  one ;  it  was  a  sort  of  ultimatuvi 
that  Paul  had  sent.     We  can  understand  the  anxiety 

'  Der  Viercapital  Brief  des  Paulus  an  die  Corinther, 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHIANS.  171 

with  which  he  awaited  the  news  that  Titus  was  to 
bring  him,  and  the  joy  and  gratitude  which  it  ex- 
cited. The  two  first  chapters  of  the  epistle  are  like 
a  sigh  of  relief,  a  cry  of  deliverance  (chap.  ii.  14). 
Titus,  armed  with  the  severe  letter  of  Paul  which  had 
preceded  him,  has  brought  the  rebels  and  disturbers 
to  reason.  The  man  who  had  grossly  outraged  Paul 
has  been  punished  ;  and  the  apostle  now  declares 
himself  satisfied,  and  wishes  him  to  be  forgiven. 
Though  the  Corinthians  had  been  mortified  by  his 
remonstrances,  their  trouble  led  to  repentance,  and  to 
the  display  of  a  more  ardent  affection.  The  victory, 
in  short,  remained  with  Paul.^ 


*  I  do  not  now  feel  quite  satisfied  with  this  historical  recon- 
struction of  the  crisis  which  occurred  in  the  Church  of  Corinth. 
That  there  was  a  letter,  now  missing,  which  came  between  the  two 
existing  epistles,  still  seems  to  me  uncontestable  ;  but  there  was 
something  more.  These  passages,  when  studied  more  closely, 
compel  us  to  admit  further  a  visit  made  by  Paul  to  Corinth 
during  the  interval  that  elapsed  between  the  two  canonical 
epistles.  Three  passages  in  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians 
establish  the  fact  of  this  visit  :  (i)  In  2  Cor.  xiii.  i  and  2,  the 
words  TptVor  tovto  tpxo/xai,  and  especially  the  phrase  ws  tto/xIjj/ 
TO  SciVcpoi',  further  followed  by  on  iav  ekOat  els  to  TrdXiv,  cannot 
be  explained  by  a  merely  projected  journey,  but  imply  a  second, 
which  was  actually  accomplished.  (2)  The  same  conclusion 
is  equally  apparent  from  2  Cor,  xii.  14  :  'iSou  rpirov  tovto 
cTot'/xws  €;(cj  iX6eLV  Trpos  v'/iu?,  kol  ov  KaTavapKrp-to.  The  assertion 
contained  in  this  latter  verb  can  only  be  explained  on  the  sup- 
position of  a  second  sojourn  of  Paul  at  Corinth,  before  he  wrote 
the  present  epistle.  (3)  Paul,  in  his  first  letter,  promised  the 
Corinthians  a  speedy  visit  (i  Cor.  xvi.  7  and  iv.  21),  and  asked 
the  faithful  themselves  to  decide  whether  he  should  come  with 
a  rod  of  chastisement,  or  with  the  spirit  of  gentleness  and  love 
to  console  them.  (4)  Lastly,  the  language  of  2  Cor.  ii.  1-3 
proves  that  this  visit  had  taken  place,  and  had  been  full  of 


172  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL, 


II.  Paul's  Remonstrance. 

It  was  in  order  to  secure  and  strengthen  this  new 
situation,  even  more  than  to  prepare  for  the  collection 
on  behalf  of  the  poor  at  Jerusalem,  tliat  the  apostle 
took  up  his  pen  once  more.  Rightly  to  understand 
the  tenor  of  the  second  epistle,  apparently  so  strange, 
we  must  form  a  clear  conception  of  the  circumstances 
which  called  it  forth.  The  crisis  which  had  occurred 
at  Corinth  had  come  to  a  relatively  favourable  issue  ; 

sorrow.  The  words,  to  jxy  TrdXtv  iv  Xvirrf  iXOelv  Trpos  r/xas, 
cannot  refer  to  the  occasion  when  Paul  was  evangelizing 
Corinth  for  the  first  time.  The  Church  had  not  then  given  him 
any  disappointment ;  for  it  did  not  as  yet  exist.  The  reference 
here  is  to  a  second,  and  quite  recent  visit,  of  which  he  retained 
a  very  sorrowful  recollection,  including  it  among  the  most  bitter 
trials  of  his  apostolical  career.  It  will  be  observed,  in  fact,  that 
Paul  speaks  in  the  same  tone  of  this  visit  as  he  does  of  the 
missing  letter,  written  immediately  afterwards,  under  the  shock 
of  distress  which  it  occasioned. 

What,  then,  had  taken  place  at  Corinth  during  this  visit  ot 
Paul  ?  There  are  two  passages  which  throw  some  light  upon 
this  question  :  2  Cor.  ii.  5-1 1  ;  vii.  11,  and  especially  ver.  12.  It 
appears  from  these  statements  that  Paul  had  been  personally 
and  directly  affronted.  There  is  some  one  at  Corinth  who  in 
his  own  presence,  and  before  the  whole  Church,  has  done  him 
serious  injury.  The  words  tov  aStK^aavTos  and  tou  uSikt/^cVtos 
of  2  Cor.  vii.  12  are  only  naturally  applicable  to  Paul  and  the 
man  who  had  affronted  him.  They  could  not  refer,  in  this  con- 
text, to  the  incestuous  person  of  i  Cor.  v.  and  his  father,  as  is 
generally  supposed.  How  could  Paul,  in  that  case,  have  had 
anything  to  forgive .''  See  2  Cor.  ii.  10.  How  could  he  say 
in  the  same  passage  that  he  had  been  directly  wounded  :  c/ac 
XcXvVt/kcj',  iv  XvTTr]  (chap.  ii.  1-5)  ?  And  how,  in  the  last  place, 
if  it  were  still  a  question  of  the  man  whom  in  his  first  letter 
he  had  delivered  to  Satan  (i  Cor.  v.  5),  could  he  now  write  about 
him  so  considerately  in  2  Cor.  ii.  7,  fjAj  ttcus  tt^  -n-epia-a-oTip^ 
XvTTj)  KOTaTTo^jj, — and  yet  more  in  ver.  1 1  ? 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE    TO   THE   CORINTHTANS.   173 

but  it  left  the  Church  still  greatly  divided.  The 
majority  had  returned  to  the  apostle's  side,  with  the 
liveliest  tokens  of  regret  and  affection.  But  besides 
this  majority,  there  still  remained  a  minority,  obsti- 
nate in  its  hatred  and  hostile  in  its  intentions.  The 
letter,  like  the  position  of  affairs,  has  a  twofold  aspect. 
Paul  could  not  have  written  it  on  any  other  plan. 
He  first  addresses  himself  to  the  faithful  majority,  and 
pours  out  the  feelings  which  fill  his  soul  towards  them. 
He  has  never  written  anything  more  touching  (chaps. 

The  affair  of  the  incestuous  person  may  indeed,  as  we  explain 
above,  have  helped  to  raise  in  the  Church  the  great  question, 
now  under  discussion,  of  Paul's  apostolic  dignity  and  authority  ; 
but  it  was  not  this  man  who  had  insulted  Paul ;  and  the  vague 
expression  Ti<i^  6  toiovto?,  which  Paul  always  uses  to  designate 
his  adversaries,  and  which  occurs  again  and  again  in  the  same 
epistle  (chaps,  x.  7  and  xi.  4),  must  be  applied  to  some  influential 
person  in  the  Church  of  Corinth,  probably  one  of  the  Judaizers 
come  from  Palestine  with  letters  of  recommendation  (2  Cor. 
iii.  i),  who  specially  claimed  to  be  0/  Christ  according  to  the 
flesh  and  to  speak  in  His  name  (chap.  x.  7).  It  was  this  same 
person  who  said  that,  though  Paul's  letters  were  strong  and 
weighty,  his  presence  was  ineffectual.  He  it  was  who  publicly 
affronted  Paul  (dStKrycrai/Tos,  chap.  vii.  12),  and  had  occasioned 
him  so  much  distress  (ei  Se  tis  XeAvTrv^KO',  chap.  ii.  5). 

We  can  therefore  reconstruct,  with  some  degree  of  proba- 
bility, the  drama  which  was  enacted  at  Corinth  during  Paul's 
second  visit.  The  apostle  had  hastened  thither  to  counteract 
the  manoeuvres  of  the  emissaries  from  Judaeaor  Syria,  who  were 
undermining  his  authority.  Debate  and  conflict  arose.  The 
Church  assembled ;  and  both  Paul  and  his  adversaries  were 
present.  His  words  were  of  no  avail  ;  the  Church  yielded  in 
part  to  the  specious  arguments  and  more  facile  eloquence  of 
the  Judaizers.  One  of  them,  doubtless  their  leader,  denounced 
Paul  openly ;  he  accused  him  of  falsehood,  treated  his  visions 
as  chimerical,  and  reproached  him  with  living  at  the  expense  of 
the  Churches.     The  confidence  of  the  Corinthians  was  shaken. 


174  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 

i.-viii.).  Then,  after  briefly  arranging  the  matter  of 
the  collection  (chap,  ix.),  he  turns  abruptly  to  the 
hostile  minority,  and  mercilessly  chastises  it  with  the 
lash  of  his  irony.  Nothing  more  biting  than  these 
last  pages  has  proceeded  from  his  pen  (chaps,  x.-xiii.). 
This  is  the  natural  explanation  of  the  two,  most  dis- 
similar portions  of  his  letter.  Nothing  bridges  the 
transition  from  one  to  the  other,  because  there  was 
nothing  in  the  facts  to  furnish  a  point  of  connexion. 

Heartbroken  by  this  affront,  and  feeling  utterly  helpless,  Paul 
left  Corinth.  But  a  few  days  later,  pen  in  hand,  the  apostle 
regained  his  power,  and  wrote  a  crushing  letter,  the  vehement 
tone  of  which  he  seems  at  first  to  regret  (2  Cor.  vii.  5-9).  This 
letter,  further  supported  by  the  oral  mission  of  Titus,  seems 
with  the  majority  to  have  prevailed  over  the  calumnies  and 
intrigues  of  his  adversaries.  The  insult  had  been  public  ;  it 
was  publicly  withdrawn  ;  and  the  offender  was  so  earnestly  dis- 
owned and  censured  by  the  majority  of  the  believers,  that  Paul 
is  now  the  first  to  ask  mercy  on  his  behalf. 

These  events,  taken  fully  into  account,  demand  a  slight  modi- 
fication in  our  chronology  of  the  two  epistles.  At  first  we  had 
only  allowed  for  an  interval  of  five  or  six  months  between  them, 
reckoning  from  about  the  Passover  of  57  to  the  autumn  of  the 
same  year.  This  space  of  time  is  too  short  for  the  occurrence 
of  all  the  facts  that  we  have  now  come  to  recognise.  We  must 
place  the  first  epistle  a  year  earlier,  which  is  easily  done,  and 
date  it  at  the  Passover  of  the  year  56  a.d.,  leaving  the  second 
in  the  autumn  of  57  (written  in  Macedonia).  This  gives  an 
interval  of  eighteen  months  between  them,  which  is  amply 
sufficient. 

Let  us  restate  the  chronological  order  and  development  of  the 
inner  history  of  the  Church  of  Corinth  during  this  period. 

I.  Towards  the  end  of  the  year  55,  and  upon  his  arrival  at 
Ephesus,  Paul  writes  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  now  lost, 
but  referred  to  in  i  Cor.  v.  9.  The  heterogeneous  fragment  of 
2  Cor.  vi.  14-vii.  I  is  doubtless  one  of  its  pages,  which  survived 
through  having  strayed  into  the  context  where  it  is  found  at 
present. 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE   TO   THE   CORINTHIANS.  17S 

Notwithstanding  their  marked  difference  of  tone 
and  manner,  the  two  parts  are  none  the  less  linked 
together  by  a  large  unity  of  thought  and  aim.  It 
is  the  same  adversary  that  Paul  combats  in  both 
parts,  the  Judaic  spirit  which  strove  by  its  pretensions 
to  extinguish  the  Christian  spirit, — that  bondage  to 
the  letter  which  still  prevailed  over  the  liberty  of  the 
Gospel,     He  resumes,  therefore,  the  warfare  begun  by 

2.  In  the  winter  of  55-56  :  the  answer  of  the  Corinthians  to 
Paul  (i  Cor.  vii.  i),  the  visit  made  to  Paul  at  Ephesus  by  the 
members  of  Chloe's  household  (i  Cor.  i.  11)  and  by  other 
Corinthian  Christians  (i  Cor.  xvi.  17),  and  the  discussion  in  the 
Church  on  the  merits  of  the  different  preachers  (i  Cor.  i.  12-14). 

3.  About  the  passover  of  the  year  56  :  Paul's  second  letter — 
our  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  mission  of  Timothy 
to  Corinth  (i  Cor.  xvi.  10). 

4.  Arrival  of  the  Judaizing  emissaries  with  letters  of  recom- 
mendation (2  Cor.  iii.  i).     Great  disturbance  in  the  Church. 

5.  In  the  autumn  of  the  year  56,  Timothy  reports  his  failure 
to  Paul,  who  sets  out  for  Corinth  and  spends  one  or  two  months 
there. 

6.  The  public  conflict  between  Paul  and  his  adversaries. 
Paul  is  worsted,  and  leaves  heartbroken.  The  Church  seems 
lost  to  him. 

7.  In  the  spring  of  the  year  57 :  Paul's  third  letter  to  the 
Church  of  Corinth,  now  lost  (2  Cor.  ii.  4  and  vii.  5-9). 

8.  About  the  same  time,  the  mission  of  Titus. 

9.  In  the  spring  of  57  :  the  meeting  of  Titus  and  Paul  in 
Macedonia  (2  Cor.  vii.  5). 

10.  Autumn  of  57  :  Paul's  fourth  letter  (from  Macedonia), 
our  second  epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

11.  Winter  of  57-58  :  Paul's  third  visit  to  Corinth,  a  happy 
and  peaceful  one  ;  for  it  was  then  that  he  wrote  his  great  letter 
to  the  Romans. 

Thus  reconstructed,  this  dramatic  chapter  of  the  apostle's 
life  enables  us,  better  than  anything  else,  to  understand  what 
that  life  was  really  like. — Note  of  the  author  loritten  for  this 
edition. 


176  THE  APOSTLE    PAUL. 

the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  and  carries  it  a  stage 
further.  The  battle  is  no  longer  about  circumcision, 
but  concerns  the  ministry  of  the  old,  and  that  of  the 
new  covenant. 

In  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  Paul  addresses 
himself  to  this  fundamental  question.  The  two  cove- 
nants are  powerfully  described  (chap.  iii.  6,  7) — one 
as  the  letter,  dead  in  itself  and  imparting  death  ;  the 
other  as  the  spirit,  having  life  in  itself  and  giving  life; 
one  resulting  in  condemnation,  the  other  in  salvation. 
If  the  first  was  glorious,  notwithstanding  its  limited 
and  transitory  character,  how  much  more  so  is  the 
second,  which  is  not  only  called  to  have  its  phase  of 
glory,  but  to  abide  in  it  {jo  Karap'yovixevov  hia  B6^T}<i 
TO  fiivov  iv  Bo^y,  chap.  iii.  11). 

To  the  two  covenants  there  correspond  two  minis- 
tries (SiuKOVia  ypd/jLuaro'i,  SiaKovia  Trvev/xaro';).  The 
first  was  that  of  Moses,  whose  face  was  veiled  before 
the  children  of  Israel,  that  they  might  not  see  its 
glory  pass  away.  But  the  ministry  of  the  new  cove- 
nant, radiant  with  permanent  glory,  is  manifested 
before  all  eyes  without  veil  or  reservation,  because 
its  glory  is  progressive  ;  for  where  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is,  there  is  entire  confidence  (irapprjaia), — a 
perfect  liberty,  a  continual  glorification  (chap.  iii. 
12-18). 

Here  Paul  introduces  the  dramatic  contrast  occu- 
pying the  fourth  and  fifth  chapters,  between  the 
inner  might  and  glory  of  his  ministry,  and  the 
humiliations  and  outward  infirmities,  which  while 
they  seem  to  eclipse  it,  only  serve  to  reveal  its 
Divine  power  more  adequately.  "  We  have  this  trea- 
sure in  an  earthen  vessel,  that  the  exceeding  power 
of  its  virtue  may  be  ascribed  to  God,  and  not  to  us. 


TBE  SECOND  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHIANS,  177 


We  are  afflicted  on  all  sides,  but  not  ovenvhelmed  ; 
always  in  distress,  yet  never  brought  to  despair ; 
persecuted,  but  not  conquered  ;  tempest-tossed,  but 
not  submerged  ;  al\va}'s  bearing  in  our  body  the  dying 
and  mortified  image  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  in  the 
death  of  our  flesh  might  also  shine  forth  the  vigour 
of  His  life." 

Xot  merely  do  trial  and  reproach  fail  to  injure  our 
ministry,  they  even  commend-  it,  and  are  the  Divine 
seal  by  which  it  may  be  recognised.  The  Christ 
whom  we  serve  is  not  Christ  according  to  the  flesh, 
but  the  Christ  who  died  and  rose  again.  Thus  every- 
thing that  is  glorious  or  powerful  according  to  the 
flesh  disappears  from  our  ministry,  as  with  Christ 
Himself,  that  the  new  life,  the  life  of  the  Spirit,  may 
be  more  fully  manifested.  "  Thus  we  commend  our- 
selves as  ministers  of  God,  by  great  patience,  by 
sufferings,  by  trials,  by  the  wounds  we  have  received  ; 
in  prisons,  in  watchings,  in  weariness,  in  fastings ; 
through  glory  and  dishonour,  through  renown  and 
calumny.  Treated  as  deceivers,  and  yet  faithful ;  mis- 
taken by  men,  and  yet  known  of  God  ;  ever  dying, 
ever  living  ;  alwaj's  tried,  yet  always  joyous  ;  poorest 
of  the  poor,  yet  enriching  multitudes."  These  ad- 
mirable pages  close  with  this  touching  appeal  to 
the  Corinthians  :  "  Our  mouth  is  open  unto  you,  O 
Corinthians  ;  our  heart  is  enlarged.  You  are  not 
straitened  in  our  affections  ;  recompense  us  in  kind. 
Enlarge  your  hearts  in  turn  "  (chap.  vi.  11).^ 


'  It  is  impossible  to  discover  the  slightest  connexion  between 
the  13th  verse  of  chap.  vi.  and  the  totally  different  line  of 
thought  beginning  in  ver.  14.  The  same  breach  of  continuity 
recurs  between  the  first  and  second  verses  of  the  7th  chapter. 
If,  on  the  contrarj'.  this  section  (chap.  vi.  14-vii.  i)  be  removed, 

12 


178  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Chapters  vii.-ix.  revert  to  some  details  which  had 
been  too  briefly  explained  at  first,  and  to  the  collec- 
tion which  had  to  be  completed  before  Paul's  return. 
The  controversy  with  the  Judaizers,  which  in  the  first 
letter  was  indirect  and  incidental,  occupies,  as  we  see, 
the  whole  of  the  second,  and  bccognes  keener  and 
more  urgent  as  the  apostle  proceeds.  Now  that  he 
has  disposed  of  the  question  of  principle,  Paul  faces 
the  accusations  and  calumnies  directed  against  his 
own  person  by  his  adversaries.  His  long- repressed 
indignation  bursts  forth  in  a  sudden  explosion  (chap. 
X.  i).  "I  Paul  myself  exhort  you  once  more  with 
all  gentleness,  and  with  the  patience  of  Christ, — I, 
so  lowly  and  humble  among  you,  so  bold  when  absent ! 
God  grant  that  when  I  come,  I  may  not  have  to  put 
forth  my  strength  to  bring  to  subjection  those  who 
represent  me  as  walking  according  to  the  flesh." 

After  refuting  the  assertions  of  his  enemies,  he  in 
his  turn  attacks  them.  He  draws  a  parallel  between 
their  ministry  and  his  own,  in  which  the  most  lashing 
irony  and  the  bitterest  indignation  are  mingled  with 
a  most  delicate  reserve.  "  Well,  though  at  the  risk  of 
appearing  foolish,  I  too  wish  to  boast  a  little :  you 
will  easily  endure  it.  I  am  about  to  speak  not  after 
the  Lord,  but  as  a  fool  :  no  matter  !  since  others  sing 
their  own  praises,  I  too  will  sing  mine.  You  who  are 
so  wise,  can  easily  bear  with  fools!  Whether  one  bring 
you  into  bondage,  or  devour  you,  or  glorify  himself, 
or  strike  you  on  the  face,  you  bear  it  with  admirable 

there  is  a  most  natural  connexion  between  chap.  vi.  13  and 
vii.  2.  The  exegetes  are  therefore  quite  right  in  regarding  the 
paragraph  which  so  untowardly  interrupts  the  thread  of  the 
discourse  as  an  interpolated  gloss,  or  a  fragment  of  one  of  Pauls 
lost  letters  inserted  in  the  midst  of  the  second  epistle. 


THE  SECOrfD  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORlNTfffAiVS.   179 


patience.     What  would  you  have  ?     I  say  it  to  my 
shame — but  I  also  have  my  weaknesses.     Of  what  do 
they  boast  ? — I  am  a  fool,  but  I  too  boast  of  the  same. 
Are  they  Hebrews?  so  am  I.    Are  they  Israelites  ?  so 
am  I.    Are  they  servants  of  Christ  ?  (here  my  foolish- 
ness has  no  bounds)  I  am  more  so  than  they;  in  weari- 
ness, imprisonment,  and  wounds — in  the  endurance  of 
suffering,  I  surpass  them  !     I  have  five  times  received 
from  the  Jews  forty  stripes  save  one.     I  have  thrice 
been  beaten  with  rods,  and  once  stoned.    Thrice  have 
I    been    shipwrecked.     I  was  a  night  and  a  day  in 
the  jaws  of  the   deep.      Wearying  journeys,   perils 
on  the  rivers,  dangers  of  every  kind — from  robbers, 
from    my  fellow  countrymen,  from    the  heathen,  in 
cities    and    deserts,   on    the   sea,   and    among   false 
brethren — labour,  sorrows,  vigils,  hunger,  thirst,  cold, 
nakedness, — I  have  braved  everything,  endured  every- 
thing.    .     .     .     But  enough  !     If  I  must  needs  glory, 
let  me  glory  in  my  infirmities  ! "     As  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  so  here  Paul  yields  none  of  his  rights. 
He  does  not  fear  to  place  himself  on  a  level  not  only 
with  those  false  apostles  who  came  to  trouble  the 
Churches  (y^evhairoaToXoi,  epydrac   BoXioi,  jxeracryT)' 
fiari^ofievot    eU  uToaToXov;   XpiaTOv,    chap.   xi.    13), 
but  with  those  whose  authority  these  others  so  much 
exalt,  and  whom  he  calls  oi  vnepXiav  airoaToKoi,  the 
arch-apostles  (chap.  xi.  5).     This  expression  of  Paul's 
corresponds  very  well  with  those  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Galatians, — o-rOXot,  ZoKovvre'^. 

III.  The  Crisis  in  Paul's  Soul. 

While  there  was  occurring  at  Corinth  that  profound 
schism  which  alone  can  explain  both  the  form  and 
substance  of  the  second  epistle,  an  equally  momentous 


iSo  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


crisis  had  supervened  in  the  great  apostle's  own  soul. 
No  external  changes  can  account  for  all  that  we  find 
in  this  letter  ;  it  gives  evidence  of  other  occurrences 
no  less  momentous,  which  took  place  in  the  author's 
inner  life. 

It  is  very  remarkable  that  Paul's  eschatological 
notions,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  are  maintained  to  the 
end  of  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  disappear 
— or,  at  least,  are  transformed — from  the  second  on- 
wards. From  this  time  he  no  longer  hopes  to  witness 
the  coming  of  the  Lord  within  his  lifetime.  This 
glorious  paroiisia^  which  formed  the  horizon  of  his 
vision  of  the  future,  has  been  indefinitely  postponed, 
and  makes  room  for  a  darker  and  more  sorrowful 
perspective.  Instead  of  the  appearance  of  Jesus,  the 
apostle  henceforward  has  the  prospect  of  death  and 
martyrdom  before  him;  and  beyond  this  painful  stage, 
the  hope  of  being  finally  reunited  to  the  Lord  (2  Cor. 
v.  i-io  ;  Acts  XX,  22-25  5  Phil.  i.  20,  21). 

This  marked  change  in  the  Pauline  eschatology 
took  place  in  the  interval  between  the  two  letters 
to  the  Corinthians.  What  has  happened  meanwhile  ? 
The  beginning  of  our  second  epistle  shows  us.  The 
last  months  of  Paul's  stay  at  Ephesus  and  in  Asia 
seem  to  have  been  the  darkest  and  most  difficult  of 
his  life.  For  the  moment,  his  hopes  and  his  spirit 
flagged.  Everything  seemed  to  conspire  against  him. 
After  the  defection  of  the  Galatians,  he  had  just 
heard  of  the  troubles  in  the  Church  at  Corinth.  He 
finds  the  same  adversaries  confronting  him  at  Ephesus 
and  furiously  persecuting  him.  The  care  of  all  the 
Churches  consumes  him  (2  Cor.  xi.  28).  He  has  no 
rest  in  his  flesh  ;  he  is  afflicted  on  every  side  {e^codev 
fidx^h  €<T(o9ev  <f)6^oL,  2  Cor.  vii.  5). 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE   TO    THE   CORINTHIANS.  iSl 

Nor  is  this  all.  He  has  just  incurred  a  mysterious 
danger  in  Asia,  of  exceptional  gravity  (2  Cor.  i.  8). 
This  trial,  which  the  apostle  does  not  explain  more 
definitely,  but  which  could  not  have  been  the  riot  of 
Demetrius  and  his  workmen  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xix. 
30-41),  surpassed  all  bounds,  and  exceeded  his  power 
of  endurance  {otl  Kad'  virep^oXijv  i^ap/jdrj/xev  virep 
hvvajjiiv).  He  despaired  of  life.  He  carried  within 
his  soul  a  sentence  of  death.  And  now  his  unhoped 
for  deliverance  seems  like  an  actual  resurrection 
(chap,  i.  8-10). 

The  hero's  indomitable  courage,  shaken  for  the 
moment  by  this  terrible  crisis,  was  soon  re-established. 
But  there  was  one  thing  which  was  not  restored  : 
the  hope  of  seeing  with  his  own  eyes  the  triumph  of 
the  Gospel,  the  establishment  of  the  Messianic  king- 
dom, and  the  immediate  paroiisia  of  the  Lord.  In  this 
crisis  his  faith  at  length  freed  itself  from  the  last 
bonds  of  traditional  Judaism  ;  and  Christian  escha- 
tology  escaped  from  the  narrow  limits  of  the  escha- 
tology  of  the  Pharisees.  The  spirit  completes  its 
triumph  over  the  letter. 

Paul  sees  new  prospects  opening  before  him.  He 
can  no  longer  reckon  on  the  intervention  of  the  arch- 
angel and  the  celestial  trumpet  for  the  founding  of 
God's  kingdom.  It  will  be  established  by  the  weakness, 
by  the  devotion  and  the  sufferings  of  its  messengers. 
The  image  of  death,  with  which  the  apostle  had  not 
hitherto  concerned  himself,  enters  for  the  first  time 
within  the  scope  of  his  doctrine. 

In  this  season  of  anguish  and  distress,  he  seems  to 
have  had  a  clear  vision  of  martrydom.  He  was  to 
seal  his  preaching  of  the  Gospel  with  his  blood.  The 
disciple,  like  the  Master,  can  only  triumph  through 


lS2  THE  APOSTLE  PAUT. 


humiliation  and  suffering.  But  Paul's  resolution  is 
fixed.  Henceforth  he  passionately  devotes  himself 
to  this  vision  of  the  dying  Jesus  ;  he  experiences  a 
new  and  indescribable  pride,  a  joy  blended  with 
anguish,  in  renewing  in  his  own  body  the  martyrdom 
of  his  Master,  in  carrying  it  forwards  by  his  personal 
sufferings  and  completing  it  by  his  death  (t7;j/  vkK- 
pcoaiv  Tov  'Irjaov  iv  rep  acojj.aTi  7repi(f)epovTe<>,  2  Cor. 
iv.  lo  ;  comp.  Col.  i.  24;  Phil.  i.  20  ;  ii.  17  ;  2  Tim. 
iv.  6).  Thus  the  apostle's  momentary  defeat  is 
changed  into  a  higher,  and,  this  time,  a  decisive 
victory. 

From  henceforth  he  is  happy  and  contented  ;  his 
mind  has  discovered  its  true  bent,  and  he  now  feels 
that  the  various  elements  of  his  faith  are  brought  into 
full  and  perfect  harmony.  If  the  earthly  future  is 
darkened,  shrinking  and  closing  up  before  his  gaze, 
in  the  heavenly  future  there  is  revealed  to  his  soul 
a  new,  v.'ide,  and  luminous  prospect.  The  mournful 
conception  of  S/ieo/  vanishes  from  his  mind  ;  and  with 
it  the  Messianic  framework  of  the  Jewish  apocalypse 
gives  way.  Instead  of  the  unconscious  sleep  of  souls 
in  the  bosom  of  the  earth,  there  emerges  triumphant 
the  Christian  hope  of  the  immediate  reunion  of  the 
elect  with  the  Saviour  (2  Cor.  v.  i-io).  True,  the 
struggle  between  the  power  of  the  Gospel  and  that  of 
sin  here  on  earth  will  be  prolonged.  Paul  has  no 
doubt  that  it  will  issue  at  last  in  the  full  triumph  of 
Christ  and  His  glorious  advent ;  but  he  no  longer 
attempts  to  estimate  the  length,  or  foresee  the  phases 
of  this  great  drama.  Like  Jesus,  and  with  the  same 
filial  submission,  he  leaves  in  the  hands  of  God  the 
Father  the  destiny  of  His  kingdom.  The  spiritual 
principle  of  Christianity  everywhere  prevails.     Death 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE   TO   THE  CORINTHTAKS.  183 


henceforth    is  completely  vanquished  and  overcome 
by  the  Christian  consciousness. 

We  know  with  what  a  crushing  effect  this  idea  of 
death  weighed  upon  the  Jewish,  as  well  as  the  heathen 
mind.  In  spite  of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection, 
fairly  established  in  the  popular  belief  as  it  appears 
from  the  time  of  the  production  of  the  book  of  Daniel, 
Hades,  or  Sheol,  retained  its  shadows,  and  death  its 
terrors.  The  soul  of  Jesus  had  shuddered  on  ap- 
proaching it.  But  the  darkness  speedily  disappeared 
before  the  radiance  of  His  faith  ;  and  He  had  entirely 
triumphed  over  death,  by  His  sense  of  perfect  and 
indissoluble  union  with  the  Father.  To  die  was,  for 
Jesus,  to  return  to  His  Father  and  His  God  (John 
XX.  17).  But  neither  the  first  Christians,  nor  the  first 
apostles,  had  appropriated  to  themselves  this  victory 
of  the  ]\Iaster.  Death  was  not  less  fearful  to  them 
than  to  the  Jews.  The  Messianic  reign  that  they 
were  expecting  was  only  to  be  realized  upon  earth  ; 
the)'  knew  no  other  sphere  of  life.  They  were  ex- 
pecting the  coming  of  the  Lord  ;  and  when  their 
friends  died,  they  were  deeply  distressed  on  their 
account.  This  explains  the  anxiety  of  the  Thessa- 
lonians  about  their  dead — an  anxiety  which  Paul 
endeavoured  to  soothe.  In  what  manner  ?  He  could 
only  at  that  time  direct  their  expectation  and  faith 
to  the  impending  event  of  the  coming  of  Jesus,  and 
assure  them  that  the  dead  will  then  rise  first  of  all, 
and,  with  the  living,  share  His  triumph.  Death  still 
retained  its  appalling  mystery ;  it  was  only  con- 
quered in  hope,  and  as  regards  the  future.^ 

[ '  But  see  i  Thess.  v.  10 :  "  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  that, 
whether  we  be  waking  or  sleeping,  we  may  Ih'e  together  with 
Him."    Here  is  already  a  sense  of  indissoluble  union  with 


l84  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

In  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians  already  Paul 
comforts  himself  in  a  manner  quite  different  from  this, 
and  more  effectual.  While  the  outer  man  succumbs 
to  death,  the  inner  man,  whose  principle  of  life  is 
the  Spirit  of  God  Himself,  is  delivered  from  it.  The 
trials  which  destroy  the  former  only  strengthen  and 
glorify  the  latter.  In  proportion  as  the  one  decays, 
the  other  is  renewed  and  reinvigorated  (2  Cor.  iv.  16). 
We  sigh  for  the  time  when,  above  our  mortal  fle.sh 
condemned  to  die,  we  shall  put  on  the  celestial  and 
spiritual  body  {iireyhvaaaOai).  Though  our  earthly 
body  be  destroyed  by  death,  we  have  yet  in  the 
heavens  a  spiritual  body  awaiting  us  ;  so  that,  when 
disrobed  of  our  earthly  covering,  we  shall  not  be 
found  naked,  any  more  than  those  living  at  the  re- 
surrection day  (2  Cor.  v.  3).  So  far,  therefore,  from 
fearing  death,  we  should  rather  desire  it.  For  while 
we  are  in  the  body,  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord  : 
but  out  of  the  body,  we  are  with  the  Lord.  Death 
only  despoils  us  of  a  perishable  covering,  to  clothe 
us  with  an  immortal  body.  For  the  Christian,  there- 
fore, death  is  truly  conquered  ;  it  belies  itself ;  it  is 
nothing  more  than  a  point  of  transition,  the  final 
crisis  which  accomplishes  our  eternal  glorification 
(2  Cor.  iv.  17). 

Thus  regarded  from  the  double  standpoint  of  the 
conflict  with  Judaism  and  the  development  of  the 
Pauline  doctrine,  we  perceive  how  important  in  all 
respects  is  the  place  which  is  occupied  in  Paul's  his- 
tory by  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians. 

Jesus,  corresponding  to  that  "sense  of  indissoluble  union  with 
the  Father"  by  which  Jesus  triumphed  over  death.  Comp. 
I  Cor.  XV.  55,  56  ("  God  .  .  .  (!;iveth  us  the  victory  ") ;  also 
John  vi.  50,  51 ;  viii.  51 ;  xi.  25,  26.] 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE   ROMANS. 

THE  epistle  to  the  Romans  completes  and  crowns 
the  progress  achieved  by  the  apostle's  mind 
during  this  stormy  period.  The  ideas  briefly  sketched 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  or  merely  thrown  out 
incidentally  in  the  two  letters  to  the  Corinthians, 
here  present  themselves  firmly  bound  together  and 
brought  to  a  powerful  unity  ;  they  are  dialectically 
established,  and  organized  into  a  complete  system. 

The  struggle  in  which  Paul  was  engaged  enters  upon 
a  new  phase,  and  for  himself  at  any  rate,  approaches 
its  issue.  The  tranquillity  which  seems  to  be  attained 
in  his  mind  and  thoughts  imparts  a  breadth  and 
calmness  to  this  last  letter  which  the  others  did  not 
possess.  It  is  no  longer  a  question  of  circumcision, 
or  of  the  attacks  made  upon  Paul's  person  or  apostle- 
ship.  Personal  feelings  and  private  quarrels  are 
forgotten  ;  the  question  of  principle  about  which  the 
two  parties  were  contending  can  now  be  seen  in  its 
full  import.  Fundamentally,  indeed,  the  controversy 
is  still  the  same  ;  but  the  apostle's  doctrine,  disen- 
tangled from  external  incidents,  is  raised  to  a  higher 
level  and  attains  a  freer  and  fuller  development. 
Escaping  from  the  violent  antithesis  by  which  it  was 
hitherto  dominated,  it  tends  towards  a  general  and 


1 86  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

culminating  synthesis.  Paul  at  last  brings  Judaism 
and  Paganism  within  the  scope  of  his  contemplation. 
He  is  not  content  to  contrast  them  with  the  Gospel, 
and  to  condemn  them  purely  and  simply  ;  he  en- 
deavours to  understand  them  in  their  historical  func- 
tions and  actual  value,  to  assign  them  their  due  place 
as  transitional  but  essential  stages  in  the  Divine  plan 
of  redemption.  In  this  manner  the  new  circle  of 
Pauline  thought  is  enlarged  and  completed.  Having 
taken  possession  of  the  sphere  of  the  conscience,  it 
conquers  the  domain  of  history.  The  epistle  to  the 
Romans  is  the  first  attempt  at  what  we  should  call, 
in  modern  phrase,  a  philosophy  of  the  religious  his- 
tory of  mankind. 

Such  appears  to  us  to  be  the  drift  and  character  of 
this  great  letter.  It  is  not  a  formal  treatise  of  ab- 
stract theology,  as  our  ancient  theologians  supposed  ; 
neither  is  it  an  expressly  controversial  writing  like 
the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  or  the  second  letter  to 
the  Corinthians.  The  apostle,  while  designing  to 
combat  the  same  tendency  and  achieve  its  final 
overthrow,  directs  against  it  a  more  general  and  less 
passionate  style  of  argument.  He  places  the  question 
on  the  ground  of  principle,  and  is  not  so  anxious  to 
get  the  better  of  his  old  opponents  as  to  do  full 
justice  to  the  truth.  The  epistle  to  the  Romans 
marks  the  exact  point  at  which  controversy  resolves 
itself  naturally  into  dogma. 

But  we  cannot  hope  to  gain  either  a  just  appre- 
ciation or  a  full  comprehension  of  this  letter,  unless 
we  take  exact  account  of  the  occasion  which  gave 
rise  to  it,  and  the  aim  by  which  it  is  inspired.  Al- 
though Paul's  c^octrine  is  presented  here  in  a  more 
general   and    dialectical    form,  it  would    be  a   great 


THE  EPISTLE    TO    THE  ROMANS.  187 


mistake  to  look  upon  his  letter  as  the  work  of  a 
professed  theologian,  dictated  by  a  purely  speculative 
interest.  Only  the  historical  circumstances  which  pro- 
duced the  epistle  will  enable  us  to  understand  it. 

I.  The  Church  of  Rome. 

Having  arrived  at  Corinth  shortly  after  his  second 
letter  to  the  Christians  of  that  city,  Paul  stayed  there 
some  time, — about  three  months,  according  to  the 
narrative  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (xx.  2,  3). 
Doubtless  his  presence  finally  calmed  the  minds  of 
the  Corinthians,  and  confirmed  his  authority  amongst 
them.  At  that  time  new  and  mighty  projects  were 
germinating  in  his  soul. 

This  last  sojourn  at  Corinth  marks  the  brilliant 
climax  of  Paul's  apostolic  career.  The  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  which  was  written  then,  seems  on  the  one 
hand  to  conclude  and  crown  the  first  stage  of  his 
life  and  work,  and  on  the  other  to  prepare  for  and  in- 
augurate the  second.  The  great  missionary  who  had 
undertaken  to  carry  the  Gospel  to  the  ends  of  the  earth 
here  pauses  a  moment,  mid-way  in  his  career.  Taking 
a  double  survey,  he  looks  back  along  the  road  he 
has  traversed  and  forward  to  that  which  he  intends 
to  follow.  Already  from  Jerusalem  to  Illyria  there 
stretched  the  numerous  succession  of  Churches  which 
seemed  to  mark  the  halting  places  in  his  long  journeys. 
From  Corinth  at  the  eastern  extremity,  he  now  sees 
opened  before  him  an  equally  wide  field  of  activity 
towards  the  west.  Before  pushing  into  these  new 
regions,  he  wishes  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  once  more, 
and  take  to  the  mother  Church  the  offerings  of  the 
Gentile  Churches,  that  by  this  means  the  distrust  of 
the  Christians  in  Palestine  may  be  finally  overcome 


lS8  THE   APOSTLE  PAUL. 

and  banished  ;  possibly  also,  desiring  thus  to  make 
amends  to  some  extent  for  the  evil  that  he  had 
formerly  done  to  it.  Then,  leaving  Syria,  Asia,  and 
Greece  behind  him,  he  intends  to  penetrate  to  the 
limits  of  the  West,  perhaps  never  more  to  return 
(Rom.  XV.  22-29).^ 

With  such  a  project  in  view,  Rome  of  necessity 
was  the  object  which  in  the  first  instance  attracted 
and  engaged  the  apostle's  thoughts.  The  Church  of 
this  city  afforded  the  most  promising  and  convenient 
vantage  ground  for  his  new  mission.  In  the  centre 
of  Italy,  equally  distant  from  Germany,  Gaul,  Spain, 
and  Western  Africa,  Rome  had  the  further  advan- 
tage of  being  in  direct  line  with  the  course  which  the 
apostle  had  hitherto  pursued,  thus  linking  the  work 
he  was  about  to  undertake  with  that  which  he  had 
already  accomplished  ;  so  that,  in  Paul's  view,  the 
Church  of  Rome  was  destined  to  become  a  mother 
Church,  and  to  be  for  the  West  what  the  great  cities  of 
Antioch,  Ephesus,  and  Corinth  had  been  by  turn  for 
the  East,  alike  the  goal  and  starting  point  of  his  new 
missionary  enterprises  (Rom.  xv.  24). 

The  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  nothing  else  but  the 
first  step  in  the  execution  of  these  vast  designs.  In 
announcing  his  impending  arrival  at  the  capital  of 
the  Empire,  the  apostle  seeks  to  prepare  his  field  of 
action,  and  to  pave  his  way  thither.  A  Christian 
Church  had  been  in  existence  in  Rome  for  some 
years,  and  it  was  of  the  first  importance  to  secure 
its  sympathy  and  support.  This  is  the  primary  aim 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.      Inasmuch   as   Paul 

'  Reiiss,  Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Schrifien  des  N.T.,  §  105 
[Hisioiy  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  N.T.,  p.  96.] 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  1S9 

was  bound  to  direct  all  his  efforts  towards  this  pur- 
pose, and  made  it  his  business  to  meet  the  feelings 
and  special  requirements  of  his  readers,  it  is  evident 
that  his  letter  can  only  properly  be  explained  by 
the  position  of  the  Church  at  Rome.  There,  and 
nowhere  else,  is  the  key  to  this  epistle  to  be  found. 

Unfortunately,  opinion  is  far  from  being  unanimous 
upon  this  capital  point.  Critics  and  expositors  have 
long  been  divided  into  two  hostile  camps.  Some 
insist  that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  essentially  Gentile- 
Christian,  and  quote  in  support  of  their  assertion 
Romans  i.  6  and  xi.  17-24 — passages  whose  bearing 
and  significance  they  perhaps  exaggerate.  Others, 
on  the  contrary,  with  Baur  at  their  head,  assert 
that  it  was  essentially  a  Jewish-Christian  Church,  and 
openly  hostile  to  Paulinism.  From  these  two  opposite 
conclusions  there  logically  result  two  contradictory 
conceptions  of  the  epistle. 

Those  who  look  upon  the  Church  of  Rome  as 
Gentile-Christian,  can  only  regard  Paul's  letter  as  a 
strictly  dogmatic  exposition  of  his  gospel,  made  with 
the  object  of  elevating  and  confirming  the  faith  of 
the  Romans  ;  or,  at  most,  of  forearming  them  against 
the  intrigues  of  the  Judaizing  teachers  (chap.  xvi.  17). 
According  to  this  view,  the  dialectic  exposition  of 
the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith,  which  occupies 
the  first  eight  chapters,  forms  the  essential  part  of 
the  apostle's  letter.  The  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh 
chapters  are  a  mere  historical  corollary,  having  no 
direct  connexion  with  the  previous  section,  whose 
tenor  and  whose  presence,  from  this  point  of  view, 
it  is  impossible  to  explain. 

On  the  opposite  theory,  the  relation  of  these  two 
component  parts  of  the  letter  are  exactly  reversed. 


190  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

Those  who  regard  the  epistle  of  the  Romans  as 
polemical,  and  addressed  to  an  unknown  or  hostile 
Church,  make  these  last  three  chapters,  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  first  hypothesis,  are  disconnected  with  the 
rest,  the  central  part  and  the  essential  basis  of  the 
letter.  There  only,  according  to  these  critics,  is  dis- 
closed the  apostle's  true  intention,  the  object  which 
in  reality  occupies  his  mind.  "  His  object  is  to  justify 
the  substitution  of  the  Gentiles  for  the  Jewish  nation; 
and  the  first  eight  chapters  are  therefore  simply  an 
introduction,  preparatory  to  the  burning  question  of 
the  destiny  of  Israel.^ 

In  point  of  fact,  these  two  conceptions  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans  appear  equally  defective.  They  cut 
the  epistle  into  two  parts,  whose  connexion  and 
unity  are  then  entirely  lost  It  is  very  difficult,  on 
the  one  hand,  to  regard  the  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh 
chapters,  charged  with  emotions  so  vivid,  as  being 
a  mere  appendix,  foreign  to  the  main  body  of  the 
letter  and  unconnected  with  the  state  of  opinion  at 
Rome  ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  difficult  to 
treat  the  first  eight  chapters  as  a  preliminary  intro- 

'  The  first  opinion,  which  was  that  of  the  greater  number  ot 
ancient  interpreters,  was  taken  up  and  maintained  not  long 
ago  with  great  skill  by  M.  Th.  Schott  :  Der  Romerbrief^  seinein 
Endzwcck  und  Gedaiikengang  nach  attsgelegt.  (Erlangen,  1858.) 
This  work  of  Schott  provoked  a  still  more  remarkable  study 
by  JNI.  Mangold,  Professor  at  Marburg  :  Der  Rbmcrbrief  tind 
die  Anfcingc  der  romischcn  Gemeinde.  (Marburg,  1866.)  The 
latter  adopts  Baur's  thesis,  but  with  such  corrections  as  to 
transform  it.  He  seems  to  me  to  have  proved  decisively  that 
the  majority  of  the  Christians  at  Rome  were  of  Jewish  origin. 
M.  Godet,  however,  in  his  recent  Commentary,  has  returned  to 
the  old  opinion ;  and  has  even  exaggerated  it,  to  an  extent  that 
makes  it  wholly  untenable. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  191 


duction.  With  so  slender  a  body  and  so  enormous 
a  head,  there  would  be  something  truly  monstrous 
in  the  structure  of  the  epistle.  On  the  contrary,  one 
of  its  great  beauties  is  precisely  the  logical  archi- 
tecture which  distinguishes  it.  A  harmonious  agree- 
ment prevails  throughout  its  various  parts  and  details. 
True,  we  seek  in  vain  for  any  obvious  transition 
between  the  two  sections  referred  to  ;  but  have  we 
not  noticed  a  breach  of  continuity,  at  least  as  great, 
existing  between  the  ninth  and  tenth  chapters  of 
2  Corinthians  ?  Paul's  mind  often  takes  these  abrupt 
and  violent  turns,  to  the  surprise  and  discomfiture 
of  the  superficial  reader ;  but  we  may  rest  assured 
that  even  then,  so  far  from  departing  from  the  right 
path,  it  is  pursuing  its  end  more  directly  and  eagerly 
than  ever. 

Is  it  not  obvious,  for  example,  that  the  two  halves 
of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  are  intimately  connected 
at  the  bottom,  and  that  the  second  without  the  first 
would  have  no  foundation,  while  the  first  without  the 
second  would  have  no  culmination  ?  Is  it  not  the 
case  that  these  three  later  chapters,  treating  of  Jews 
and  Gentiles  under  the  state  of  grace,  correspond 
with,  and  form  a  pendant  to  the  first  three,  in  v.-hich 
the  apostle  exhibited  them  both  in  a  state  of  sin  ? 
In  view  of  this,  how  can  it  be  doubted  that  the  two 
portions  of  the  epistle  form  an  organic  whole  ?  We 
must  therefore  endeavour  to  discover  some  method 
of  understanding  the  letter  to  the  Romans  which  will 
preserve  its  internal  unity,  and  determine  its  precise 
bearing. 

To  return  to  the  Church  at  Rome.  Its  members 
were  both  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  extraction  :  this  is  a 
certain  fact.     Everything  leads  us  to  believe  that  the 


192  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

former  constituted  the  great  majority,  and  that  in  this 
sense  the  Church  might  be  called  Jewish-Christian. 
But  does  it  follow  from  this  that  it  was  Judaiziiig, — 
distinctly  hostile  to  Paul's  gospel,  and  maintaining 
salvation  through  the  rites  of  the  law  in  opposition 
to  salvation  by  faith  ?  We  answer  decidedly,  No  ; 
and  Baur's  error  consisted  in  drawing  this  second 
inference  from  the  former. 

If,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  the  Church  of  Rome 
did  not  belong  to  Paulinism,  certainly  it  was  just  as 
free  from  the  bias  of  the  teachers  of  Galatia  or  Corinth. 
Paul  does  not  regard  it  as  hostile,  or  even  alien  to 
himself  On  the  contrary,  he  considers  this  Church 
to  be  included  in  the  field  of  action  assigned  to  him 
(eOvecnv,  eV  oU  iare  koX  v/jbeh,  chap.  i.  6).  He  regards 
himself  as  its  debtor,  and  declares  himself  ready  to 
impart  his  gospel  to  it  (chap.  i.  14,  15).  He  applies 
to  its  members  all  the  titles  that  he  gave  to  his 
Churches  in  Asia  (/cXt/toI  ^Itjctov  Xpiarov,  dyaTnjrol 
0eov,  ayioi).  He  not  only  praises  their  faith,  but 
gives  thanks  to  God  on  their  behalf,  just  as  for  the 
faith  of  the  Thessalonians  and  Corinthians  ;  and  as 
he  had  not  done  in  writing  to  the  Galatians.  To 
view  these  words  as  a  mere  insinuating  exordium, 
a  sort  of  captatio  benevolentice,  is  an  injustice  to  Paul's 
character.  To  say  that  he  has  modified  his  way  of 
looking  at  things  and  softened  his  views,  is  con- 
tradictory to  the  essential  tenor  of  the  epistle  itself. 
We  must  recognise  the  fact  that  we  have  here  a 
Church  of  Christians  who  cannot  be  placed  in  the 
same  category  with  the  Judaizers  of  Galatia  or 
Corinth.  The  rest  of  the  epistle  accords  with  its 
beginning.  The  apostle's  line  of  argument  does  not 
imply  a  declared  hostility  among  his  readers.     There 


THE  EFISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  193 


is  no  direct  polemic.  His  design  is  to  instruct,  rather 
than  refute  ;  to  expound  his  gospel,  to  dispel  or  an- 
ticipate misconceptions,  rather  than  to  repel  particular 
attacks.  The  stern  warning  given  to  the  Gentile 
Christians  (chap.  xi.  17-24)  does  not,  indeed,  prove 
that  these  were  in  the  majority  ;  but  is  it  conceivable 
that  Paul  would  address  such  words  to  a  few  friends 
of  his  own,  lost  in  the  mass  of  Jewish  Christians 
openly  hostile  to  them  ?  Neither  are  the  weak 
(d<j9€vovvTe<i)  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  chapters 
Judaizers  of  the  same  class  as  those  of  Corinth.  But 
it  is  none  the  less  true  that  Paul's  appeal  to  the  rest  of 
the  Church  for  tolerance  and  charity  on  their  behalf, 
implies  in  it  a  considerable  breadth  of  view.  Any  one, 
in  short,  who  reads  the  fifteenth  chapter  attentively, 
will  have  difficulty  in  persuading  himself  that  words 
like  those  could  have  been  written  to  a  Church  which 
was  confessedly  hostile,  and  had  made  common  cause 
with  Paul's  adversaries  :  "  I  exhort  you  by  the  Lord 
Jesus,*'  he  says  in  concluding,  "  to  strive  with  me  in 
your  prayers  to  God,  that  I  may  be  delivered  from 
the  rebels  in  Judaea, — that  the  offering  I  am  taking  to 
Jerusalem  may  be  favourably  received  by  the  saints, 
and  that  I  may  come  to  you  in  joy  and  find  refresh- 
ment and  rest."  Finally,  if  the  fragment  contained  in 
chap.  xvi.  17-20  belongs  to  this  epistle,  it  would  prove 
that  the  adversaries  against  whom  Paul  had  formerly 
been  compelled  to  defend  himself,  had  not  yet  reached 
Rome  ;  he  hoped  in  his  letter  to  be  beforehand  with 
them,  and  to  anticipate  their  wonted  attacks. 

Are  we  to  conclude  from  this  that  the  Church 
at  Rome  was  a  Pauline  Church  ?  That  would  be 
going  far  beyond  the  meaning  of  the  passages  just 
examined,  to  another  extreme  even  less  warrantable 


194  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


than  the  former.  If  the  Romans  had  attained  the 
spiritual  elevation  of  Paul,  where  would  have  been 
their  need  of  such  a  long  explanation  and  careful 
justification  of  his  gospel  ?  Those  who  adopt  this 
hypothesis  are  obliged  to  regard  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  as  a  dogmatic  treatise,  written  with  a  purely 
speculative  end.  But  besides  the  fact  that  Paul  has 
never  composed  anything  of  that  kind,  it  would  be 
impossible  then  to  establish  any  connexion  between 
the  epistle  and  the  Church  to  which  it  is  addressed, 
and  to  explain  why  this  dogmatic  treatise  was  sent 
to  Rome  rather  than  elsewhere.  The  explanation  of 
Paul's  attempt  must  be  found  in  the  state  of  the 
Church  at  Rome.  Now  the  apostle  himself  tells  us 
what  he  wishes  to  impart  to  the  Romans,  and  con- 
sequently what  in  his  view  was  still  lacking  to  them  : 
*'  I  earnestly  desire  to  see  you,  that  I  may  impart 
unto  you  some  spiritual  gift,  that  you  may  be  es- 
tablished "  (^iva  Ti  /j,€TaBco  ')(apiaixa  vfilv  TrvevfiariKov 
eU  TO  aTr]pcx0>)vai  vjj,d^,  chap.  i.  1 1).  What  are  we  to 
understand  by  this  ■^dpiafx.a  irvev/jLariKov,  this  domim 
spirituale  ?  If  we  reflect  that  in  i  Corinthians  ii. 
10-14  Paul  has  given  the  trvevfia  as  the  vital  prin- 
ciple of  the  Christian  consciousness,  the  source  of  his 
own  liberty  of  faith  and  of  his  spiritual  conception 
of  the  Gospel  ;  if  we  remember  that  in  the  above 
context  he  has  distinguished  between  the  irvevixaTiKoi, 
judges  of  all  things  and  free  with  respect  to  all,  and 
the  aapKiKol  still  in  bondage, — and  that,  lastly,  he 
designates  the  Gospel  as  he  understands  it  by  the 
neuter  irvev/xaTiKci,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he 
must  have  intended  by  those  two  words  a  wider 
and  more  spiritual  conception  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
and  a  clearer  understanding  of  the  intimate  relation 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  195 

of  the  believing  soul  with  the  Spirit  of  God,  which 
will  make  their  faith  stronger  and  more  jo}'ful  and 
give  it  greater  liberty.  Does  not  the  whole  epistle 
reveal  a  persistent  effort  to  raise  the  Christian  faith 
of  the  Romans  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  level  ? 
Written  to  a  distinctly  Pauline  Church,  it  would 
cease  to  be  comprehensible  ;  the  long  disquisitions 
on  the  law,  and  the  care  with  which  Paul  anticipates 
Judaistic  objections  are  inexplicable.  Still  more  per- 
plexing would  be  the  justification  which  Paul  feels 
it  necessary  to  offer  of  his  mission  to  the  Gentiles 
and  their  entrance  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  The 
nature  of  the  questions  rai.sed,  the  precautions  taken, 
the  general  tone — everything  in  the  letter  implies 
not  a  hostile  Judaizing  Church,  but  one  of  Jewish 
parentage,  in  which  however  the  great  questions  were 
not  yet  raised  which  for  some  years  past  had  agitated 
the  Christianity  of  the  East. 

This  peculiar  and  most  remarkable  position  of  the 
Church  at  Rome  is  accounted  for  by  the  history  of 
its  origin,  and  also  by  the  comparative  isolation  in 
which  it  had  existed  until  the  arrival  of  Paul's  letter. 
We  have  no  reliable  documents  relating  to  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity  into  Rome.  But  we  may 
safely  assume  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Church 
had  its  rise  in  the  Synagogue,  and  was  only  separ- 
ated from  it  by  a  violent  rupture.  It  is  probable 
that  the  allusion  of  Suetonius  ( Vit.  Claud.,  §  25), 
Claudius  J iidcEos  iuipulsore  Cliresto  assidue  tuinultuantes 
expulit,  refers  to  the  inevitable  disturbances  that  broke 
out  on  this  occasion  in  the  Roman  Jewry.  This 
edict  of  Claudius  was  imperfectly  or  only  temporarily 
carried  into  effect  ;  while  the  Christian  community 
suffered  from  it,  it  was  not  thereby  destroyed..    It 


196  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL, 


continued  to  recruit  itself  from  among  the  Jews  and 
the  numerous  proselytes,  without  renouncing  Jewish 
ideas  and  customs.  It  was  in  the  same  position  as 
that  of  the  Churches  of  Syria,  before  the  dissensions 
brought  on  by  the  great  success  of  the  Gentile 
mission.  No  apostolic  teacher  seems  to  have  visited 
it,  or  to  have  given  it  any  special  and  exclusive  bias. 
It  had  been  the  spontaneous  creation  of  the  Gospel. 
Paul  now  encountered  it  in  the  field  of  labour  which 
had  fallen  to  his  lot.  Aquila  and  Priscilla  had  doubt- 
less drawn  the  apostle's  attention  to  this  already 
flourishing  community,  and  encouraged  him  to  write 
to  it,  acquainting  him  with  the  kindly  simplicity 
of  its  disposition,  and  the  deficiencies  of  its  faith. 

We  have  followed  the  progress  of  the  Judaistic 
agitation  step  by  step  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch, 
from  Antioch  to  Galatia,  from  Galatia  to  Ephesus, 
and  from  Ephesus  to  Corinth.  The  Judaizing 
teachers  only  seem  to  have  reached  this  last  town, 
the  limit  of  their  progress  westwards,  in  the  year 
57,  during  the  interval  between  the  two  epistles  to 
the  Corinthians.  They  cannot  therefore  have  arrived 
at  Rome,  where,  moreover,  there  was  no  Paulinism 
to  combat.  This  Church  had  remained  in  the  simple 
and  un-theological  faith  of  the  primitive  days.  It 
was  virgin,  and  therefore  neutral  soil,  which  might 
easily  be  claimed  by  the  first  occupant.  It  was  most 
important  to  Paul  that  he  should  take  possession  of 
it,  and  not  allow  himself  to  be  anticipated.  He  will 
therefore  him.self  expound  his  gospel  to  the  Church 
at  Rome,  before  his  adversaries  come  to  present  it  in 
caricature.  He  will  endeavour  to  raise  the  Romans 
to  the  level  of  his  own  faith,  and  win  them  to  the 
cause  of  the  Gentile  mission  ;  or,  at  any  rate,  if  that 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  197 

is  too  much  success  to  hope  from  his  letter,  he  will 
try  by  its  means  to  secure  a  favourable  reception  for 
his  gospel  and  his  apostleship.  Addressed  to  a  Church 
like  this,  with  this  object  in  view,  the  epistle  is  its 
own  explanation.  Paul  is  not  engaged  in  a  con- 
troversy, for  he  is  writing  to  brethren,  not  enemies  ; 
he  is  attempting  to  justify  his  gospel  and  apostle- 
ship before  a  community  which,  reared  as  it  was  in 
Judaism,  might  find  both  difficult  for  it  to  accept.^ 

The  crisis  now  in  progress  throughout  the  Christian 
Churches,  by  which  the  Jewish  and  Christian  spirit,  so 
united  at  the  first,  were  growing  more  and  more 
distinct  and  coming  into  violent  collision,  could  not 
but  occur  at  Rome.  But  the  epistle  to  the  Romans 
was  not  subsequent  to  this  crisis  ;  on  the  contrary,  it 
preceded  and  provoked  it.  It  raised  in  that  Church, 
for  the  first  time,  the  great  question  of  the  abrogation 
of  the  law,  and  thereby  marked  a  decisive  epoch  in 
its  history.  The  Judaic  spirit  was  to  show  itself  here, 
as  everywhere  else,  obstinate  and  implacable.  Paul 
gained  a  few  partizans,  and  made  many  adversaries. 
The  Church  became  divided.  The  epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  written  three  or  four  years  later,  shows 
us  the  breach  accomplished  (Phil.  i.  12-18).  Two 
(apparently  authentic)  passages  in  the  second  epistle 
to  Timothy  give  us  the  saddest  impression  of  Paul's 
position  a  few  days  before  his  death.     He  is  alone, 

*  These  considerations,  I  believe,  afford  sufficient  refutation 
of  the  conjecture  of  M.  Renan,  who  regards  the  epistle  to  the 
Komans  as  an  encyclical  letter  addressed  by  the  apostle  to 
several  Churches,  but  not  more  required  by  that  of  Rome  than 
by  any  of  the  others.  It  might,  indeed,  only  have  been  sent  to 
the  Roman  community  by  way  of  exception  !  (See  his  Saint 
Paul,  Introduction,  p.  72.) 


igS  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


in  prison,  betrayed  by  some,  deserted  by  the  rest 
(2  Tim.  i.  15-18  ;  iv.  9-18).  Nevertheless,  this  victory 
of  the  Judaizing  party  did  not  destroy  Paul's  in- 
fluence at  Rome.  In  the  letter  of  Clement  of  Rome 
it  appears  again,  still  vigorous  and  profound.  But  it 
is  time  to  return  to  the  epistle  itself 

II.  The  Plan  of  the  Epistle. 

To  this  Church,  such  as  we  have  just  described  it, 
Paul  had  to  explain  two  very  important  facts,  and 
secure  acceptance  for  them  :  the  substitution  in  the 
new  religious  economy  of  the  Gospel  for  the  Law,  and 
of  the  Gentiles  for  the  people  of  Israel — the  one  the 
defence  of  his  tcacJiing,  the  other  the  htstification  of 
his  apostlesJiip.  The  essential  contents  of  the  dog- 
matic portion  of  the  epistle  are  summed  up  in  these 
two  theses.  The  first  eight  chapters  are  the  de- 
monstration of  the  former  ;  chapters  ix.-xi.  are  the 
demonstration  of  the  latter.  From  this  general  dis- 
position of  the  subject  matter,  it  is  very  evident  that 
the  two  parts  are  equally  essential  to  the  structure  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  equally  important. 
The  one  is  the  logical  consequence  of  the  other. 

Paul  has  formulated  the  fundamental  thesis  of  his 
gospel  in  the  16th  and  17th  verses  of  the  first  chap- 
ter. He  introduces  it  by  the  words  ov  f^ap  iiraiU' 
"^vvofiai  TO  evayyeXiov,  which  express  the  apostle's 
courage  and  boldness  not  only  in  face  of  the  con- 
tempt of  the  Greek  and  Roman  world,  but  most  of 
all  when  confronting  the  hostility  and  scorn  of  the 
Judaizing  party.  The  Gospel  which  he  proclaims 
before  all,  he  well  defines  as  a  hvvajxi'^  Geov,  realizing 
the  BtKaioavvT]  0eov  for  the  salvation  (el<;  cr'xiTr^piav)  of 
every  believei\ — of  the/^w  first,  and  also  of  ihQfagan. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  199 

This  salvation  is  universa},  just  because  it  depends  on 
faith  alone — as  it  is  written,  The  just  shall  live  by  faith. 
Whilst  thus  vigorously  formulating  the  universal 
character  of  his  doctrine,  Paul  carefully  from  the  first 
avoids  wounding  the  Jewish  sentiment ;  he  accords 
priority  to  the  Jew  (lovSaico  irpoiTov).  This  is  no 
concession  ;  it  is  the  recognition  of  the  simple  fact 
that  the  Jew,  as  the  heir  of  the  promises,  was  in  the 
course  of  history  called  before  the  Gentile  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God. 

Paul  establishes  this  great  thesis  by  an  admir- 
able demonstration,  in  which  we  note  four  essential 
stages : 

I.  Chapter  i.  18-iii.  31.  Entering  upon  a  survey  of 
the  moral  and  religious  condition  of  humanity,  the 
apostle  shows  that  there  is  no  salvation  for  it  apart 
from  Christ.  He  sketches  in  broad  outlines  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  heathen  world,  in  which  the  just  wrath 
of  God  is  revealed,  punishing  sin  through  sin  itself, 
unrighteousness  by  idolatry,  and  the  latter  by  moral 
depravity  (chap.  i.  18-32).  He  then  turns  to  the  Jew, 
who  has  a  better  knowledge  of  the  Divine  law,  but 
in  practice  keeps  it  still  less;  who  condemns  himself 
in  condemning  the  Gentile,  forgetting  that  external 
circumcision  is  nothing  if  the  heart  remain  uncircum- 
cised  (chap.  ii.  1-29). 

At  this  point,  Paul  might  already  consider  the 
basis  of  his  doctrine  as  established  ;  but  he  is  anxious 
to  remove,  or  to  anticipate  an  objection  which  will 
infallibly  be  made.  Does  it  not  seem  like  denying 
the  privileges  of  the  Jews,  to  put  them  on  the  same 
level  as  the  Gentiles  ?  Hence  the  question  with 
which  the  third  chapter  opens  :  What  advantage,  then, 
has  the  Jew  ?     Paul  recognises  his  historical  privi- 


200  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


leges.  The  Jew  received  the  oracles  of  God ;  and  God 
is  faithful,  even  towards  men  who  are  not  so.  But 
what  is  there  in  this  belief  to  encourage  such  men, 
and  to  justify  their  unfaithfulness  ?  Would  any  one 
draw  the  impious  deduction  that  unfaithfulness,  if 
serving  to  glorify  the  will  of  God,  ought  not  to  be 
punished  ?  Would  not  this  amount  to  saying.  Let  us 
do  evil  that  good  may  come?  The  sin  of  the  Jew 
remains,  therefore,  as  much  as  that  of  the  Gentile.  To 
make  his  demonstration  still  more  impressive,  Paul 
sums  it  up  in  terms  which  are  all  borrowed  from  the 
Old  Testament.  Jews  and  pagans,  alike  impeached 
by  the  Divine  justice,  have  equal  need  of  salvation 
of  God  (chap.  iii.  9-20).  Here  the  apostle  resumes 
the  thesis  in  which  he  summed  up  his  gospel,  and 
develops  it  in  a  more  complete  and  exact  manner 
(chap.  iii.  21-26).  All  are  deprived  of  the  glory  of 
God,  but  the  righteousness  of  God  has  been  mani- 
fested apart  from  the  law.  We  are  justified  by  a 
gratuitous  act  of  grace,  by  means  of  the  redemption 
that  is  in  Jesus  Christ — through  faith  in  His  blood — 
in  order  to  manifest  the  righteousness  of  God.  This 
is  no  longer  revealed  in  mere  punishment,  as  was  the 
case  under  the  law,  but  in  justifying  hint  that  be- 
lieves. Vers.  27-31  deduce  the  consequences  of  this 
first  demonstration  of  Paul's  thesis. 

2.  Chapter  iv.  The  apostle  could  not  stop  short  at 
this  point.  His  opponents  would  still  have  adduced 
against  his  syllogisms  the  authority  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. He  therefore  changes  the  direction  of  his  argu- 
ment, and  in  the  fourth  chapter  endeavours  to  prove 
that  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  at  the 
very  root  of  the  old  covenant,  and  has  the  evidence  of 
Scripture  in  its  (axour  (fxaprvpovfiivT}  vtto  tov  lo/xov  kuI 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  201 

Toiv  'Trpo(f>r]Ta)if).  Neither  Abraham  nor  David  was 
justified  by  works  (chap.  iv.  1-9).  Abraham's  faith 
was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness  before  he  had 
received  circumcision,  which  rite,  so  far  from  dispens- 
sing  with  faith,  has  from  the  first  merely  been  its 
confirmation  (vers.  10-12).  Lastly,  it  was  to  fait/i 
that  the  promise  was  given,  and  through  faith  also  it 
is  realized.  Abraham  believed  in  God,  who  raises  the 
dead,  and  addresses  the  things  that  are  not  as  things 
actually  existing  ;  for  the  word  of  God  is,  in  fact, 
creative,  and  realizes  by  its  own  virtue  all  that  it 
declares.  In  the  same  way  we  believe  in  God,  who 
delivered  Jesus  to  death  for  our  sins  and  has  raised 
Him  again  for  our  justification  (vers.  13-25). 

3.  Chapter  v.  With  the  fifth  chapter  begins  a  new 
development  of  the  subject.  In  order  to  complete  the 
demonstration  of  this  principle  of  faith,  Paul  allows 
it  to  explain  and  justify  itself  by  its  spiritual  fruits 
(vers,  i-i  1).  It  gives  a  new  life,  of  which  the  believer 
is  intensely  conscious,  manifesting  itself  in  the  peace 
which  he  enjoys  before  God,  in  patient  endurance 
of  tribulation,  in  the  love  filling  his  heart,  and  in  the 
firm  hope  that  sustains  him,  of  which  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  sure  pledge.  Then,  review- 
ing the  whole  history  of  humanity  and  summing  up 
all  that  he  has  just  set  forth,  the  apostle  goes  on 
to  show  the  power  of  sin  entering  the  world  through 
Adam's  transgression,  developing  there  by  degrees  as 
an  organic  force,  and  bringing  in  its  train  the  death 
which  comes  to  all  men,  bccau.sc  all  are  sinners.  But 
beneath  this  progress  of  humanity  in  sin  and  towards 
death,  he  points  out  a  new  progress  proceeding  from 
Christ,  the  second  Adam,  which  fulfils  itself  in  holiness 
and  tends  to  life.    "Where  sin  abounded,  grace  super- 


202  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 


abounded  ;  that  as  sin  reigned  by  death,  grace  might 
reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  hTe,  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  "  (vers.  12-21).  Thus  Paul  has 
demonstrated  his  thesis,  first  by  dialectic  reasoning, 
then  by  Scriptural  authority,  and  then  by  the  con- 
clusive evidence  of  experience  and  history. 

4.  Chapters  vi.-viii.  Arrived  at  the  culminating 
point  of  his  demonstration,  Paul  again  encounters  the 
perpetual  objection  made  to  his  gospel,  the  same 
that  had  been  raised  at  Antioch  and  in  Galatia,  and 
which  his  last  words  could  not  fail  to  arouse.  Is  not 
this  doctrine  of  an  absolute  grace,  abounding  over 
the  sin  of  men  in  order  to  cover  it,  the  ruin  of  all 
morality?  Will  it  not  afford  occasion  and  excuse 
for  saying,  Let  us  sin,  that  grace  may  abound  ?  This 
objection  brings  the  apostle  to  the  very  core  of  his 
doctrine,  and  suggests  the  admirable  exposition  of  the 
seventh  and  eighth  chapters,  the  profoundest  pages 
which  he  has  ever  written.  He  there  defines  with 
wonderful  clearness  the  relation  of  the  three  terms, 
ufiapria,  v6/.io^,  ^api?.  This  common  objection  does 
not  touch  the  Christian  ;  for  in  his  quality  as  a  sinner 
he  has  been  crucified  with  Christ.  He  left  his  sin  in 
the  grave  of  Jesus  ;  and  has  risen  with  Him  to  a  new 
life,  which  belongs  wholly  to  God  (chap.  vi.  i-ii). 
Instead  of  being  the  slave  of  sin,  he  is  now  the  slave 
of  righteousness  (vers.  12-23). 

But  at  the  same  time  that  he  died  to  sin,  he 
died  also  to  the  law  ;  he  escapes  by  death  from 
this  second  power,  as  from  the  first,  for  it  only  had 
dominion  over  him  so  long  as  he  lived.  But  uoiu 
he  has  died  !  and  if  he  is  raised  again,  it  is  to  obey 
not  the  old  letter,  but  the  new  power  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  to  which  henceforward   he  belongs  (chap.  vii. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  203 


1-6).  Does  that  mean  that  the  law  is  sin  ?  Far  from 
it.  But  the  law  gives  life  to  sin  by  making  it  known 
as  sin,  and  actualizing  it  in  the  form  of  transgression. 
The  function  of  the  law  is  to  awaken  within  us  this 
painful  consciousness  of  sin,  and  intensify  it  to  the 
point  of  despair.  Thus  the  law,  owing  to  our  flesh 
in  which  the  power  of  sin  resides,  brings  us  death 
(chap.  vii.  7-24). 

But  at  the  very  point  where  the  law  makes  ship- 
wreck and  we  founder  on  death,  there  triumphs  the 
almighty  grace  of  God,  manifest  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Paul  here  explains,  more  fully  than  he  did  in  the  fifth 
chapter,  the  wonderful  effects  of  this  grace  :  absolute 
freedom  from  all  condemnation  (chap.  viii.  1-4); 
efficient  sanctification  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (vers.  5-1 1); 
filial  adoption  by  God  (vers.  12-27)  ;  the  triumph  of 
faith  amidst  even  the  severest  trials,  through  the  firm 
hope  of  the  glory  which  shall  be  ref  ealed  in  us  (vers. 
18-39).  Thus  triumphantly  ends  the  demonstration 
of  Paul's  first  thesis. 

From  this  point,  whither  the  logic  of  his  doctrine 
and  the  impulse  of  his  emotion  have  led  him,  he  could 
not  descend  to  the  second  thesis  of  his  letter  by  any 
natural  transition.  It  is  useless,  therefore,  to  look  in 
the  eighth  chapter  for  anything  which  announces,  or 
prepares  for  the  developments  to  follow.  The  tran- 
sition docs  not  lie  in  the  words.  It  takes  place  in 
Paul's  feelings,  in  the  painful  contrast  which  forced  it- 
self upon  him.  In  the  midst  of  the  joy  with  which  his 
heart  has  just  overflowed,  he  is  seized  with  the  thought 
that  his  people  remain  strangers  to  this  covenant  of 
grace.  His  joy  changes  suddenly  to  bitter  sorrow, 
and  it  is  with  a  heartfelt  cry  of  distress  (chap.  ix.  1-5) 
that  he  begins  the  defence  of  his  apostleship.    In  these 


204  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

three  last  chapters  Paul  is  bent  on  one  thing  only 
— to  make  plain  the  agency  of  God  in  the  religious 
revolution  which  has  taken  place,  the  issue  of  a  plan 
which  may  seem  unjust,  but  which  increasingly  vin- 
dicates itself  as  it  is  further  unfolded.  God  is  not 
bound  to  the  Jewish  people.  If  He  rejects  them  now, 
in  order  to  call  the  Gentiles,  it  is  by  a  free  decree  of 
His  sovereign  grace.  The  Jews,  moreover,  have  no 
right  to  complain  ;  they  have  only  themselves  to 
blame  for  their  unbelief  But  this  rejection  is  neither 
absolute  nor  final ;  if  it  brings  about  the  conversion  of 
the  Gentiles,  that  in  its  turn  will  lead  to  the  salvation 
of  Israel.  Such,  in  its  historical  sequence,  is  the 
universal  plan  of  redemption.  Where  the  Jews  see 
nothing  but  painful  contradictions,  an  insoluble  enigma 
and  dense  darkness,  the  profounder  insight  of  the 
apostle  perceives  and  points  out  the  glorious  issue  of 
the  Divine  plans.  Hence  the  three  essential  stages 
in  his  argumentation — tJie  absolute  freedom  of  the  grace 
of  God,  which  justifies  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
Divine  will  Paul's  work  among  the  Gentiles  (chap, 
ix.)  ;  the  tinbclief  of  the  feius,  justifying  to  their  own 
understanding  the  decree  of  God  which  abandons 
them  (chap,  x.)  ;  the  final  solution  of  this  existing 
antithesis  between  Israel  and  the  Gentiles,  in  the 
complete  redemption  of  both  (chap.  xi.). 

I.  Chapter  ix.  6-29.  Paul  does  not  touch  directly 
upon  the  question  of  the  future  of  the  Gentiles.  His 
main  point  is  to  explain  and  reconcile  his  readers  to 
the  sorrowful  fate  of  the  people  of  Israel,  who,  with 
all  their  great  privileges,  continue  strangers  to  the  new 
covenant.  The  apostle  starts  with  the  principle  that 
carnal  descent  from  Abraham  does  not  constitute  a 
right  to   inherit    the    promise,  but    that    this    right 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  aoj 

depends  solely  upon  the  free,  sovereign  grace  of  God. 
Just  as  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  Isaac  was  chosen 
and  not  Ishmael  ;  and  in  the  family  of  Isaac,  Jacob 
and  not  Esau  ;  so  now  from  among  the  people  of 
Israel  this  grace  calls  some  to  salvation,  and  leaves  the 
rest  to  destruction  (vers.  6-13).  It  is  true  that  a  grave 
objection  is  here  raised.  In  punishing  him  whom 
He  has  hardened,  is  not  God  unjust?  Several  pass- 
ages in  Scripture  itself  seem  to  confirm  this  accusation 
(vers.  14-18).  Paul  is  content  to  repel  it  by  abso- 
lutely refusing  to  man  the  right  of  contending  with 
God,  or  of  controlling  His  will  (vers.  20,  2i).  God  is 
free  to  create  vessels  of  wrath  to  manifest  the  great- 
ness of  His  judgments,  and  vessels  of  mercy  to  mani- 
fest the  infinite  riches  of  His  love.  These  vessels  of 
mercy  may  be  taken  from  any  quarter,  from  amongst 
the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the  Jews.  God  may,  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  Hosea,  call  those  His  people  who 
were  not  His  people, — and  according  to  that  of  Isaiah, 
reduce  to  a  feeble  remnant,  to  a  small  number  of 
elect,  the  great  multitude  of  Israel  (vers.  24-29). 

2.  Chapter  ix.  30-x.  21.  Hitherto  Paul  has  only 
considered  these  dispensations  from  the  absolute 
standpoint  of  the  Divine  sovereignty.  But  they  have 
another  aspect ;  and  from  vers.  30-33  a  new  point 
of  view  is  disclosed,  in  which  human  responsibility 
regains  all  its  importance.  Why,  after  all,  should  the 
Jewish  people  complain  ?  Is  the  judgment  of  God 
arbitrary  ?  Is  not  the  persistent  unbelief  of  Israel  its 
immediate  and  historical  cause  ?  Because  the  people 
obstinately  sought  righteousness  by  the  works  of  the 
law,  and  despised  that  which  comes  by  faith,  therefore  it 
is  now  rejected  (chap.  x.  i-i  i).  The  Jew  had  the  same 
opportunity  as  the  Gentile.    The  mercy  of  God  is  the 


2o6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

same  toward  all  who  call  upon  Him.  But  the  differ- 
ence lies  in  this,  that  the  Gentiles  have  believed  the 
Gospel,  while  the  Jews  have  always  proved  rebellious 
(vers.  1 1-2 1). 

3.  Chapter  xi.  1-32.  Paul  does  not  stop  here. 
He  will  not  leave  his  readers  in  a  state  of  mournful 
resignation,  dictated  solely  by  a  sense  of  the  inevitable 
necessity  of  things.  Beyond  the  darkness  of  the 
present,  he  desires  to  show  them  in  the  future  the 
absolute  triumph  of  the  work  of  God.  This  is  the 
design  of  the  eleventh  chapter.  The  apostle  reminds 
them  that  the  word  of  God  is  immutable,  and  that 
He  cannot  absolutely  and  finally  reject  His  people. 
He  saves  even  now  a  part  of  it.  If  the  mass  indeed 
is  rejected,  it  is  not  that  it  may  be  eternally  lost.  This 
fall  is  in  God's  design  a  mode  of  bringing  about  the 
salvation  of  the  Gentiles.  But  the  salvation  of  the 
Gentiles,  in  turn,  is  intended  to  accomplish  the  full 
and  perfect  realization  of  the  salvation  of  the  Jews 
(vers.  1-12). 

With  this  conviction,  and  in  fulfilment  of  this 
Divine  idea,  the  apostle  labours  with  indefatigable 
zeal  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles.  As  things 
are,  it  is  the  best  thing  he  can  do  for  his  nation  itself 
He  strives  to  excite  it  to  jealousy,  for  he  knows  surely 
that  it  cannot  perish.  The  Gentiles,  indeed,  should 
never  forget  that  this  people  whose  branches  are  now 
cut  off,  are  none  the  less  the  holy  root,  the  true  olive- 
tree,  on  the  trunk  of  which  they  are  engrafted  ;  and 
that  while  its  fall  led  to  their  adoption,  this  in  its  turn 
will  yet  more  certainly  lead  to  its  restoration.  Thus 
the  ways  of  God  justify  themselves  ;  and  thus  the 
temporary  oppositions  and  painful  contradictions  of 
the  present  are  effaced,  and  disappear  in  the  final 


THE  EPISTLE  TO   THE  ROMANS.  207 


unity  and  consummation  of  the  redemption  :  "  God 
has  shut  up  all  men  in  sin,  that  He  might  have  mercy 
upon  all !  "  Is  it  surprising  that  the  apostle,  stirred 
by  such  lofty  thoughts  and  so  grand  a  vision,  suffers 
his  enthusiasm  to  burst  forth  at  the  last  in  a  hymn  of 
adoration  in  praise  of  the  unsearchable  wisdom  of 
God  ?  (vers,  33-36.)  The  second  victory  won  by  Paul's 
dialectic  is  as  great  and  final  as  the  first.  Not  only 
has  he  justified  his  apostleship,  by  referring  it  to  the 
Divine  decree  ;  not  only  has  he  proved  that  he  dero- 
gates nothing  from  the  Jews,  who  are  called  to  faith 
equally  with  the  Gentiles  ;  but  he  has  further  shown 
that  in  reality  he  is  indirectly  serx'ing,  and  effectively 
preparing  for,  the  fulfilment  of, the  destinies  of  the 
people  of  Israel. 

There  is  no  need  that  we  should  analyse  the  hor- 
tatory portion  of  this  epistle,  the  precepts  and  moral 
exhortations  of  which  are  the  practical  issue  of  the 
principles  that  Paul  has  just  developed.  We  may 
say,  however,  that  nothing  in  chaps,  xv.  and  xvi.  gives 
any  ground  for  the  doubts  raised  by  Baur  respecting 
their  authenticity.  Only,  these  later  pages  of  the 
letter  are  in  great  disorder.  The  manuscripts  entirely 
disagree  with  each  other,  and  present  strange  pheno- 
mena. The  epistle  to  the  Romans,  as  now  constituted, 
has  four,  or  even  five  terminations  :  chap.  xiv.  23, 
where  we  sometimes  find  intercalated  the  doxology 
of  chap.  xvi.  25-27  ;  then  chap.  xv.  33  ;  chap.  xvi.  20 ; 
xvi.  24 ;  and  the  actual  termination,  chap.  xvi.  25-27. 
Of  all  the  hypotheses  which  have  been  assumed  to 
explain  these  details,  that  of  M.  Renan  still  seems  to 
me  the  best.  According  to  this,  several  copies  of  the 
letter  were  made  and  sent  to  the  different  Churches, 
with  appropriate  additions  from  Paul  himself ;  one,  in 


8o8  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


particular,  to  Ephesus,  to  which  may  have  been  added 
the  special  note  preserved  in  chap.  xvi.  1-20. 

This  rapid  analysis  exhibits  the  new  features  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Romans  and  the  theological  pro- 
gress accomplished  since  the  letters  to  the  Galatians 
and  Corinthians.  The  Pauline  doctrine  has  at  last 
attained  its  unity.  The  apostle  is  no  longer  satisfied 
with  contrasting  the  Gospel  and  the  Law  ;  whilst  re- 
jecting the  yoke  of  the  latter,  he  goes  further,  and 
finds  the  Law  fulfilled  in  the  Gospel.  In  the  same 
way,  though  he  shows  how  the  Gentiles  take  the  place 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  which  the  unbelieving  Jews 
left  v^acant,  he  does  not  stop  short  at  this  contrast ; 
he  feels  the  necessity  of  explaining  to  himself,  as 
well  as  of  justifying  to  others,  this  mystery  in  the 
plan  of  God.  The  necessary  consequence  of  the 
Jews'  rejection  is  to  bring  the  Gospel  out  of  the 
narrow  circle  of  Judaism  and  spread  it  to  the  ends  of 
the  earth.  But  in  this  general  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles,  Paul  only  sees  a  new  method  by  which  God 
designs  to  bring  back  the  people  of  Israel  in  their 
turn  into  the  covenant  of  grace.  Here  again,  review- 
ing the  conflicts  of  history,  his  doctrine  attains  a  final 
reconciliation.  In  this  unity  it  finds  repose.  From 
this  culminating  point  it  surveys  the  progressive  evo- 
lution of  the  plan  of  redemption,  and  of  the  destinies 
of  humanity. 

God  lias  shut  up  all  men  into  disobedience,  that  He 
might  have  mercy  upon  all.  This  -great  saying,  which 
closes  and  crowns  our  epistle,  is  the  keystone  of  the 
arch  in  the  apostle's  structure.  Oneness  and  equality 
in  sin,  oneness  and  equality  in  redemption  :  these 
words  sum  up  both  the  leading  idea  and  the  entire 
plan  of  this  great  work.     From  this  historical  point 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  209 


of  view,  the  two  portions  of  the  epistle,  which  usually 
have  been  merely  placed  in  juxtaposition,  are  blended 
together  and  recover  their  profound  unity.  While 
the  first  shows  us  the  fall  of  humanity  and  its  virtual 
uplifting  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  second,  still  on  the  same 
lines,  exhibits  the  progressive  realization  of  the  King- 
dom of  God  in  history,  up  to  the  point  where  it 
embraces  all  humanity.  The  religious  philosophy 
broadly  sketched  in  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  is 
here  defined  and  completed. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  this  final  unity,  all  the  inter- 
mediate stages  through  which  the  Divine  conception 
passes  in  its  fulfilment,  in  the  very  nature  of  things 
appear  but  transitory.  We  imderstand  them  alike 
in  their  historical  necessity  and  their  subordination, 
— in  their  essential  relativity.  Only  the  short-sighted 
could  suffer  themselves  to  be  arrested  or  driven  to 
despair  by  the  inevitable  antagonisms  and  conflicts. 
The  true  believer  foresees  the  final  reconciliation,  and 
knows  that  all  these  struggles  really  ser\-e  to  fulfil 
God's  design.  The  apostle  had  to  win  acceptance,  in 
minds  still  fettered  by  Judaism,  for  two  facts  equally 
revolting  and  equally  painful — the  abrogation  of  the 
Law  by  the  Gospel,  and  the  substitution  of  the 
Gentiles  for  the  Jews  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  How 
could  he  succeed  better  than  by  directly  referring 
these  two  facts  to  the  Divine  will,  and  showing  them 
to  be  essential  stages  in  God's  eternal  plan  ? 

We  may  say,  therefore,  that  Paul's  letter  is  pre- 
eminently a  work  of  synthesis  and  reconciliation.  We 
must  not,  however,  go  too  far  ;  we  will  not,  with  some 
theologians,  speak  of  concessions,  of  advances  made 
by  the  apostle  towards  his  adversaries,  of  a  Paulinism 
which  is  not  so  strict  as  that  of  the  epistle  to  the 

14 


210  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

Galatians.  Such  an  opinion  could  only  be  held  by 
superficial  readers,  who  judge  from  first  impressions 
and  do  not  attempt  to  analyse  the  epistle.  None 
of  Paul's  letters  sets  forth  with  greater  profundity  or 
with  more  rigorous  logic  his  most  cherished  ideas. 
His  doctrine  is  rounded  and  completed,  but  not 
modified.  It  reduces  to  unity  the  two  terms  of  that 
problem  which  had  long  disturbed  it.  Though  we 
speak  of  reconciliation  and  of  synthesis,  it  is  of  that 
logical  reconciliation  of  his  various  ideas  that  must  be 
sought  by  every  earnest  thinker,  and  of  the  final 
synthesis  in  which  alone  the  mind  can  find  repose. 

Hence  the  admirable  harmony,  the  calm  sense  of 
power  which  distinguish  this  epistle  above  all  the 
others.  A  perfect  equilibrium  prevails  in  it  from 
beginning  to  end.  The  balance  is  always  justly  held 
between  Jew  and  Gentile.  If  the  Gentile  is  corrupt, 
the  Jew  is  no  less  guilty.  By  different  routes  they 
arrive  inevitably  at  the  same  condemnation  (ou  yap 
iariv  Biaa-ToXj],  chap.  iii.  22).  United  in  sin,  they  con- 
tinue united  in  their  redemption.  Is  God  the  God  of 
the  Jews  only,  is  He  not  also  the  God  of  the  pagans  ? 
(chap.  iii.  27-30.)  There  are  only  two  humanities — 
the  one  sinful,  descended  from  Adam,  to  which  all 
belong;  the  other  redeemed  and  sanctified,  the  issue  of 
Christ,  the  second  Adam,  to  which  all  ought  to  belong. 
This  equilibrium  is  still  more  striking  in  chaps,  ix., 
X.,  and  xi.  Paul  not  only  proves  that  the  advantages 
of  the  one  party  are  not  acquired  to  the  detriment  of 
the  other,  but  that  neither  obtains  any  grace  which 
will  not  in  the  end  redound  to  the  benefit  of  all.  If 
the  Jews  received  the  promises,  it  was  that  they 
might  preserve  them  and  transmit  them  to  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  and  if  the  Gentiles  enter  into  the  new  covenant, 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  ROMANS.  i\\ 

their  conversion  is  to  lead  to  that  of  the  Jews.  In 
the  same  way  the  apostle  entreats  the  weak  to  respect 
the  strong,  and  exhorts  the  strong  to  support  the 
weak  (chaps,  xii.,  xiv.,  xv.).  For  blind  rivalries  he 
substitutes  everywhere  fraternal  solidarity,  and  for 
intestine  conflicts  organic  unity. 

This  is  the  culminating  point  which  the  Pauline 
theology  has  now  attained.  From  the  psychological 
sphere,  where  it  discovered  and  established  its  funda- 
mental principle,  it  has  risen  to  the  wide  sphere  of 
history,  and  there  attains  its  full  expansion.  It  pauses 
a  moment  to  contemplate  and  admire  the  onward 
progress  o  the  plan  and  the  revelations  of  God. 
But  at  this  height  it  has  already  reached  its  critical 
point,  where  the  philosophy  of  history  changes  of 
necessity  into  speculative  theory.  As  yet  it  does  not 
pass  this  limit  ;  but  remains  within  the  horizon  of 
time.  It  even  declares  the  wisdom  of  God  unfathom- 
able, and  the  secret  of  His  ways  impenetrable!  But 
may  it  not  attempt  to  gain  some  glimpse  of  them? 
Shall  it  refrain  from  seeking  to  unveil  at  last  the  meta- 
physical principles  implied  in  its  previous  develop- 
ments ?  May  it  not  crown  the  edifice  so  laboriously 
constructed  ? 

The  inherent  logic,  the  natural  bias  of  the  apostle's 
mind,  was  to  lead  him  to  climb  this  last  summit. 
The  new  events  and  the  important  changes  about  to 
take  place  in  his  own  history,  and  in  that  of  his 
Churches  in  Asia,  will  soon  furnish  the  occasion  for 
this.  In  the  epistles  of  the  Captivity  Paul's  inde- 
fatigable intellect  attains  its  final  goal. 


BOOK    IV. 

THIRD  PERIOD:    THE  PAULINISM  OF 
LATER    TIMES. 

From  58  A.D.  to  — (?) 

WITH  the  apostle's  captivity  begins  the  last 
epoch  of  his  life.  The  letters  usually  referred 
to  this  period  present  us  with  a  new  type  of  doctrine 
as  distinct  from  that  of  the  great  epistles  as  the  latter 
was  from  primitive  Paulinism.  The  striking  antithesis 
between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel  formulated  during 
the  struggles  of  the  preceding  period  is  found  here  in 
a  qualified  and  more  general  form,  though  it  has  not 
wholly  disappeared  (Phil.  iii.  2,  3  ;  i.  12-18).  The 
Judaistic  opposition  seems  relegated  to  the  back- 
ground. Errors  of  another,  but  no  less  dangerous  char- 
acter, threaten  the  apostle's  work  in  Asia,  and  evoke 
a  third  and  broader  development  of  his  doctrine. 

Before  entering  upon  the  exposition  of  this  last 
phase  of  Paul's  teaching  it  is  necessary,  therefore,  to 
define  clearly  the  entirely  new  circumstances  in  which 
the  apostle  is  now  placed. 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE  ADDRESS  AT  MILETUS. — APPEARANCE  OF  THE 
GNOSTIC  ASCETICISM. —  NEW  EVOLUTION  IN 
PAUL'S  THEOLOGICAL  DOCTRINE. 

THE  farewell  address  delivered  by  the  apostle  at 
Miletus  to  the  elders  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus, 
forms  the  natural  transition  from  the  second  period 
of  his  life  to  the  third  (Acts  xx.  13-35). 

Paul  left  Corinth  a  few  days  after  the  despatch  of 
his  letter  to  the  Church  at  Rome  (Rom.  xv.  25  ;  comp. 
Acts  XX.  3).  He  was  going  up  to  Jerusalem.  His 
journey  through  Macedonia  and  along  the  shores  of 
Asia  Minor  was  simply  a  long  series  of  farewells. 
Paul  accomplished  it  in  great  anxiety  of  mind  and 
under  the  most  gloomy  forebodings.  Vainly  did  his 
friends,  who  shared  his  fears,  endeavour  to  shake  his 
resolution.  He  obeyed  the  inward  call  of  God  ;  he 
was  bound  in  conscience  (Acts  xx.  22).  His  hour 
had  come.  This  journey  reminds  us  of  the  last 
journey  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem.  At  the  end  of  his 
career  the  disciple,  like  the  Master,  was  to  undergo 
his  passion.  The  tenderness  of  his  heart,  his  serene 
faith  in  the  midst  of  sorrow,  his  submissive  and  firm 
obedience,  are  strikingly  exhibited  in  his  pathetic 
farewell  to  the  pastors  of  Ephesus. 

The  address  at  Miletus  has  a  still  f^rcater  historical 


THE  LATER  PAULINISM.  21$ 

significance.  The  apostle  was  affected  not  only  by 
the  crisis  about  to  take  place  in  his  own  life,  but  by 
the  changes  which  he  already  foresaw  in  the  destiny 
of  his  Churches.  The  Judaistic  opposition  had  spent 
its  first  fury,  and  no  longer  seemed  very  formidable. 
A  new  crisis  was  developing.  /  knozi\  said  the 
apostle,  t/iat  after  my  departure  rapacious  wolves  will 
attack  you,  and  will  not  spare  the  flock ;  from  the 
midst  of  yon  will  men  arise  uttering  perverse  things 
{\a\ovvTe<i  Biearpafifieva)  to  draw  tlie  disciples  after 
them  (Acts  xx.  29,  30).  It  is  very  evident  that  these 
rapacious  wolves,  these  false  teachers  coming  actually 
from  the  midst  of  the  Gentile  Christian  Churches,  are 
no  longer  the  Judaizing  teachers  with  whom  we 
have  become  familiar.  What  can  their  distorted  talk 
be,  but  an  unnatural  perversion  of  the  Gospel  itself, 
tortured  from  it  by  their  false  wisdom  ?  There  is  an 
obvious  allusion  here  to  the  modes  of  interpretation 
familiar  to  Gnosticism.  Some  critics,  it  is  true,  have 
only  brought  forward  this  allusion  as  an  argument 
against  the  authenticity  of  the  Address  itself,  or  at 
least  against  the  fidelity  of  the  narrator.  The  argu- 
ment would  be  very  strong,  if  this  indication  of  the 
concealed  presence  of  the  Gnostic  leaven  and  its 
hitherto  secret  working  were  an  isolated  fact.  But 
there  are  other  considerations,  more  explicit  and  less 
disputable  than  this,  which  serve  to  confirm  and 
justify  these  predictions  as  coming  from  Paul's  mouth. 
Let  us  return  to  the  epistle  to  the  Romans.  Let 
us  ask  ourselves  who  were  the  weak  members  of  this 
Church,  whom  Paul  describes  in  chapter  xiv.,  and 
towards  whom  he  preaches  charity  and  tolerance? 
No  doubt  they  were  connected,  more  or  less  closely, 
with  Judaism.     It  was  from  Judaism,  and  not  from 


2i6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


the  Pythagorean  philosophy,  that  their  scruples  and 
asceticism  were  derived.  But  they  must  not  be  con- 
founded with  the  Judaizing  Christians  of  Galatia  and 
Corinth,  or  even  identified  with  the  Judaizers  of 
Rome  as  a  body.  These  Christian  ascetics  who  insist, 
not  on  circumcision  and  Pharisaic  observances,  but 
on  certain  abstinences,  are  a  new  development, 
radically  different  from  primitive  Juda^o-Christianity. 
They  neither  eat  meat  nor  drink  wine,  living  only  on 
vegetables.  Where  shall  we  find  the  origin  of  this 
asceticism  ?  Ritschl,  not  without  some  show  of 
reason,  regards  it  as  a  result  of  Essenism,  the  spirit 
of  which  was  already  creeping  into  the  Church.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  this  practical  asceticism  had  its  basis 
either  in  a  philosophical  dualism,  or  in  an  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture  analogous  to  that  employed  by  the 
Ebionites  to  justify  the  same  abstinences.^  But  at 
Rome  this  ascetic  morality  seems  to  have  propagated 
itself  without  the  dogmas  which  justified  it.  Practice 
had  anticipated  theory.  That  is  why  the  apostle, 
while  condemning  the  principle  of  action  adopted  by 
these  %ueak  members  {ireTreLa^ai  ev  Kupiw  ^Irjaov  on 
ovBey  KOivbv  hC  kavrov),  does  not  trouble  himself  to 
contend  with  them,  and  shows  them  the  indulgence 
which  is  due  to  every  scrupulous  conscience.  Later 
on,  at  Colossae,  the  two  elements  of  theory  and 
practice  are  found  in  combination."     The  tendency, 

*  See  Epiplianiiis,  Hcpies.,  30.  15. 

-  Perhaps  the  language  of  Rom.  xvi.  17-19  should  be  applied 
to  Gnostic  teachers  elsewhere  than  at  Rome.  It  would  be  more 
appropriate  to  such  teachers,  it  seems  to  us,  than  to  the  early 
Judaizers.  It  is  a  new  indication  to  add  to  those  which  we  are 
now  pointing  out,  of  the  early  appearance  of  Gnosticism  in 
the  apostolic  Churches. 


THE  LATER  PAULINISM.  217 


hitherto  vague  and  floating,  presents  itself  to  us  here 
in  a  more  decided  and  clearly  marked  shape. 

The  false  teachers  whom  Paul  attacks  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Colossians,  are  distinguished  in  fact  by 
these  two  characteristics  :  a  very  rigorous  asceticism, 
and  a  very  daring  boldness  of  speculation.  They 
seem  indeed  to  have  endeavoured,  in  concert  with  the 
Judaizers,  to  impose  circumcision  upon  the  Gentile 
Christians  (Col.  ii.  11),  but  their  originality  does  not 
lie  in  this.  It  consists  in  that  voluntary  asceticism 
which  spares  not  the  flesh,  which  credits  itself  with 
something  specially  meritorious  just  becau.se  it  goes 
beyond  the  commandments  of  God,  and  which  Paul 
so  aptly  characterizes  in  the  word  edeXoOprjaKela 
(chap.  ii.  22,  23).  They  not  only  observe  the  Sab- 
baths and  the  new  moons,  but  they  further  command 
abstinence  from  certain  kinds  of  food  and  drink : 
toiic/i  not ;  taste  not.  With  this  system  of  abstinence 
is  joined  the  worship  of  angels,  among  whom,  no 
doubt,  Jesus  Christ  was  reckoned. 

This  worship  of  angels  implied  something  that 
went  far  beyond  a  mere  popular  superstition.  It  was 
a  .subject  of  speculation  and  transcendental  science. 
These  celestial  beings  were  divided  into  classes  and 
ranged  in  an  elaborate  hierarchy,  which  was  intended 
to  explain  the  relations  of  God  and  the  world,  the 
origin  and  nature  of  evil,  the  course  of  the  world's 
history,  and  its  final  i.ssue.^  This  .system  was  destined 
to  become  transformed  and  perfected  in  the  great 
Gnostic  schools  of  the  beginning  of  the  second  cen- 


'  It  is  well  known  that  the  worship  of  angels  and  a  specula- 
tive philosophy  of  the  celestial  hierarchies  formed  an  essential 
part  of  the  Essenian  theology. 


2i8  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


tury.  But  it  is  already  sketched  out  here.  The 
vocabulary  of  Gnosticism  is  created.  Its  terms  still 
preserve,  it  is  true,  the  religious  colouring,  the  positive 
character  due  to  their  origin  ;  but  they  have  already 
begun  to  merge  both  these  in  the  metaphysical  and 
abstract  signification  which  constantly  grows  upon 
them.  The  aeons  are  enumerated  :  Opovoc,  Kvpiorrj-e^, 
dpX<^''>  alwve<;.  Their  totality  is  expressed  by  the 
Divine  ifKripmixa.  Between  the  lowest  of  the  aeons 
and  the  supreme  God  there  is  an  ascending  scale 
through  which  all  these  beings  must  rise,  to  re-enter 
by  degrees  the  Divinity  whence  they  issued. 

Such  was  the  fantastic  world  that  the  teachers 
of  Colossae  were  absorbed  in  contemplating.  These 
are  the  far-fetched  speculations,  alike  baseless  and 
irrational,  with  which  the  apostle  upbraids  them  in 
denouncing  their  religion  of  angels  (a  /ij)  ioopuKeu 
i/Ml3aTevo)v,  chap.  ii.  i8).  The  more  ingenious  their 
theories,  the  prouder  they  were  of  them  (etV>)  (fjuaiou- 
/zevos).  They  claimed  to  have  found  the  true  wisdom, 
and  to  possess  all  its  treasures  (chap.  ii.  3,  4) ;  they 
had  sounded  the  depths  of  being  ;  they  kiien.\  where 
others  only  believed.  So  they  opposed  their  gnosis 
to  the  simple  faith  of  humble  Christians.  Such  is 
Judaistic  Gnosticism,  as  it  appears  in  the  epistles  to 
the  Colossians  and  Ephesians. 

Its  image  becomes  still  more  definite  and  complete 
in  the  three  pastoral  epistles  (so  called).  There  we 
have  the  same  asceticism,  the  same  fantastic  specu- 
lations, the  same  dreams  of  the  imagination  (i  Tim. 
iv.  1-7).  The  fundamental  dualism  of  this  philosophy 
is  still  more  marked  (chap.  iv.  3,  4).  The  system 
acquires  a  more  articulate  and  consistent  form  ;  it  is 
a  profane  mythology  (jxiidoi  ^i^ijXoi  koL  ypaujBei^:) 


THE  LATER  PAULINISM.  219 


around  whose  figures  metaphysics  weaves  stories 
of  the  strangest  and  most  daring  character.  There 
are  endless  genealogies  (yeveaXoyiai  airepavTOi),  pas- 
sionate and  fruitless  discussions,  gratifying  morbid 
curiosity.  Finally,  this  philosophy  already  bears  its 
historical  title, — that  o{ gnosis  (r  Tim.  vi.  20).^ 

There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  nature  of  th'is 
primitive  Gnosticism.  It  was  evidently  a  speculation 
which  arose  in  Jewish  circles,  and  which  remained 
Judaistic.  Its  teachers  not  only  counselled  circum- 
cision, the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  new 
moons  (Col.  ii.  11-18)  ;  they  claimed  moreover  to  be 
the  true  teachers  of  the  law  {voixohihaa Kokoi,  i  Tim. 
i.  7).  Doubtless  they  started  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  by  the  mode  of  exegesis  common  at  that 
time  discovered  in  it  all  their  dreams.  The  epistles 
call  their  fables  fxvdoi  ^lovZaiKoi  (Tit.  i.  14) ;  either 
because  these  myths  were  originated  by  Jews,  or 
— what  "is  more  probable — because  they  consisted  in 
Jewish  legends  or  narratives  from  the  Old  Testament, 
transformed  into  philosophical  myths  in  the  spirit 
and  direction  of  Philonism. 

But  these  new  tendencies,  which  must  from  the 
beginning  have  assumed  a  variety  of  forms,  were  none 
the  less  fundamentally  distinct  from  the  Judaeo- 
Christianity  of  the  'primitive  days.  The  latter  re- 
sembled a  continuation  of  Pharisaism  in  the  Christian 
Church ;  the  former,  as  Ritschl  and  Mangold  have 
well  observed,  has  the  appearance  of  a  development 
of  Essenism.  We  are  unwilling  to  enter  in  this  place 
upon  the  difficult  question  of  the  origin  of  Gnosticism. 


'  See  Mangold,  Die  Irrlehrer  der  Pastoralbriefe.     Marburg, 
1856. 


220  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

It  probably  took  its  rise  spontaneously,  in  different 
places  at  the  same  time.  It  was  not  in  fact  a  special 
philosophy,  but  a  general  impulse  of  the  human 
mind,  which  made  itself  felt  at  that  period  in  all 
schools  and  creeds  alike,  striving  to  transform  the 
elements  of  tradition,  to  dissolve  and  absorb  them 
by  a  laborious  process  of  speculative  reason.  Thus 
neo-PIatonism  and  Neo-pythagoreanism  are  nothing 
else  but  a  philosophical  Gnosticism ;  just  as  the  specu- 
lations of  Basilides  or  Valentinian  are  a  Christian 
Gnosticism,  and  the  Alexandrianism  of  Philo  a  Jewish 
Gnosticism.  These  systems  are  the  result  of  the  same 
spiritualizing  processes,  differently  applied  in  different 
places  and  by  different  minds.  They  aim  at  the  same 
goal,  and  pursue  it  by  the  same  method,  seeking  not 
only  discursive  knowledge,  but  direct  intuition,  the 
possession  and  enjoyment  of  absolute  truth.  Finally, 
one  permanent  feature  of  all  these  schools  is  the  union 
of  speculative  mysticism  with  practical  ascetitism. 

If  we  consider  the  abundant  development  of  this 
Gnosticism  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
and  recollect  that  it  was  then  the  dominating 
philosophy  throughout  the  East,  we  can  scarcely 
doubt  that  its  origin  lay  as  far  back  as  the  middle  of 
the  first  century.  It  cannot,  in  short,  be  supposed 
that  the  systems  which  prevailed  about  120  or  130 
A.D.,  blossomed  out  all  at  once  in  the  scholarly  and 
finished  form  which  then  distinguished  them.  Gnos- 
ticism only  arrived  at  this  point  of  development  by 
a  somewhat  lengthy  process  of  elaboration.  By  this 
time  it  had  its  ancestors,  its  history,  and  traditions  ; 
it  loved  to  connect  itself  directly  with  the  apostles. ^ 

*  It  is  well  known  that  Basilides,  Valentinian,  and  Marcion 


THE  LATER  PAULINISM.  22t 


Its  chronology,  no  doubt,  is  still  very  uncertain. 
But  the  Gnostic  terms  scattered  through  Paul's  later 
epistles,  especially  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
can  no  longer  be  brought  forward  as  proofs  against 
their  authenticity.  They  only  show  that  the  origin 
of  Gnosticism  is  much  earlier  than  has  long  been 
supposed.  Can  we  wonder  to  see  such  a  tendency 
breaking  out  thus  early,  in  the  very  midst  of  the 
Christian  Church?  In  explanation  of  this  fact  it  is 
not  necessary  to  refer  to  the  eclectic  methods  of  the 
time,  or  to  the  general  fermentation  of  thought  in  the 
great  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  which  was  then  engen- 
dering so  many  strange  phenomena.  It  is  enough 
to  observe  the  remarkable  affinity  of  Gnosticism  with 
the  Gospel.  Gnosticism  had  the  same  end  in  view — 
the  union  of  man  with  God,  the  redemption  of  fallen 
beings  ;  and  in  practical  life  its  asceticism  might  only 
seem  a  rigorous  application  of  Jewish  or  Christian 
morality.  But  we  can  also  understand  what  dangers 
the  apostolic  teaching  incurred  from  this  association. 
In  becoming  a  metaphysical  speculation,  the  Gospel 
was  losing  its  moral  character.  The  concrete  facts 
and  positive  tradition  on  which  it  was  based,  and 
which  constituted  its  strength,  were  dissolving,  evapo- 
rating, changing  into  symbols  of  abstract  ideas.  The 
Gospel  was  becoming  a  mythology.  The  Christian 
redemption,  which  always  implies  human  liberty,  and 
which  involves  struggles  of  conscience  and  conversion, 
was  no  longer  anything  more  than  the  theory  of  the 

claimed  to  have  collected  secret  traditions,  which  had  been 
transmitted  to  them  from  the  immediate  disciples  of  the 
apostles.  Thus  Basilides  was  said  to  hold  his  doctrine  from  a 
certain  Glaucias,  an  interpreter  of  Peter,  and  Valentinian  from 
Thcodas,  a  disciple  of  Paul. 


222  THE  AFOSTLE  PAUL. 

gradual  return  to  God  of  every  being  who  had  issued 
from  Him.  Finally,  the  person  of  Christ  was  on  the 
point  of  being  merged  and  lost  amongst  a  crowd  of 
intermediate  beings,  in  the  hierarchy  of  aeons  with 
whom  His  work  and  His  glory  were  shared.^ 

Such  was  the  new  situation  opening  in  Asia  ]\Iinor, 
the  dangers  of  which  Paul  was  eager  to  avert.  The 
apostle's  penetrating  mind,  so  swift  to  discern  prin- 
ciples and  to  seize  at  the  first  glance  both  their 
nature  and  consequences,  could  not  be  mistaken  as 
to  the  gravity  of  this  movement.  Still,  as  M.  Rcuss 
admirably  remarks,  "if  the  contact  of  Christianity  with 
the  leaven  then  working  in  men's  minds  had  been 
purely  hostile,  it  might  perhaps  have  been  possible  to 
run  the  risk  of  leaving  it  alone  to  exhaust  itself  But 
what  made  it  specially  dangerous  was  the  incapacity 
of  many  minds  to  distinguish  the  radical  difference 
between  the  two  currents  of  ideas,  and  the  pre- 
dilections of  so  many  Greeks  who  were  attracted  to 
the  Church  chiefly  by  the  desire  of  knowledge  and  by 
philosophical  aspirations,  and  who  naturally  turned 
to  the  quarter  from  which  these  aspirations  seemed  to 
receive  the  most  ample  satisfaction.  There  came  a 
time,  therefore,  when  the  old  reactionary  party  of  the 
Judaizers  seemed  less  dangerous  than  the  advanced 
party, — that  of  the  new  philosbphers."  -  In  this  way 
all  the  essential  features  in  the  Paulinism  of  later  times 
are  sufficiently  explained. 

I.  Paulinism,  hitherto  of  such  a  bold,  I  had  almost 
said  revolutionary  character,  was  of  necessity  about 
to   assume   a    more  conservative  form.      Resistance 

^  See  Reuss,  Histoire  de  la  thMogie  aposiolique,  vol.  i.,  pp. 
366-377.     [Eng.  trans.,  i.,  pp.  316-325.] 
*  See  Reuss,  vol.  i.,  p.  378.    [Eng.  trans.,  i.,  p.  326.] 


THE  LATER  PAULINISM.  223 


must  succeed  attack.  The  apostle  seeks  to  recall 
men's  minds  to  the  old  doctrine,  the  primitive  tradi- 
tions (Eph.  iii.  2-5  ;  ii.  20 ;  Phil.  iii.  i  ;  Col.  ii.  2-5). 

2.  The  Pauline  teaching,  in  face  of  this  opposition, 
takes  a  more  speculative  form.  In  the  first  epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  the  apostle  had  already  described  his 
Gospel  as  perfect  ivisdoin  {ao<^iav  ev  toU  reXe/ot?, 
I  Cor.  ii.  6).  But  there  he  still  preferred  to  contrast 
the  foolisJiness  of  the  cross  with  the  wisdom  of  the 
world.  Henceforward,  without  robbing  the  Gospel 
in  any  way  of  this  Divine  foolishness,  or  allowing  the 
Christian  to  forget  the  sphere  of  the  inner  and  sanc- 
tified life,  he  seeks  to  expound  this  perfect  wisdom, 
and  exhibits  in  his  teaching  the  most  exalted 
philosophy.  Besides,  his  own  instincts  led  him  in 
this  direction  ;  and  he  must  have  found  a  certain 
delight  in  opposing  to  these  daring  speculations  the 
true  Christian  knowledge,  and  thus  crowning  the 
labour  of  his  whole  system  (Col.  i.  9,  10 ;  ii.  2  ;  Eph. 
iii.  10  :  01  Orjaavpol  tt}?  cro(f)ia<i  koI  Trj<;  yvcoaeco^  iv 
Xptcrr^  aTTOKpvcpoi,  Col.  ii.  3). 

3.  From  this  new  point  of  view  there  inevitably 
issued  a  fresh  result, — the  concentration,  or,  I  would 
say,  the  absorption,  of  the  whole  Christian  system  of 
dogma  in  Christology.  The  doctrines  of  justification 
by  faith  and  universal  salvation  are  summed  up  in 
the  later  epistles  with  equal  vigour,  precision,  and 
fulness.  But  that  is  not  the  main  design  of  these 
letters.  These  great  ideas  no  longer  seem  in  peril. 
It  was,  as  we  have  already  said,  the  supreme  royalty 
of  Jesus  Christ  which  was  in  danger  of  being  eclipsed 
amid  the  crowd  of  intermediate  beings.  Accordingly, 
it  is  with  triumphant  pride  that  Paul  overthrows  and 

.  lays  prostrate  at  the  feet  of  the  Son  of  God  all  these 


224  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


powers,  thrones,  and  aeons,  that  dispute  with  Him 
the  honour  of  the  work  of  redemption.  The  declara- 
tion of  the  transcendental  worth  of  the  person  and 
work  of  Jesus  follows  as  a  matter  of  course. 

4.  Lastly,  a  final   and    no   less    important  change 
was  at  the  same  time  taking  place  in   Paul's  ethics. 
The    letters   to   the  Corinthians   seemed    to   counsel 
some  degree  of  asceticism,  especially  with  regard  to 
marriage.     This  asceticism,  as  we  have  said,  was  not 
deduced  from  the  personal  doctrine  of  the  apostle ; 
but  the  expectation   of  Christ's  immediate  coming, 
and  the  fear  of  the  great  tribulations  which  were  to 
precede    it,   had    led    him    to    urge,    somewhat    too 
strongly,  the  precept  of  abstinence.      Though  mar- 
riage   is   good,  he   had    said,  celibacy  is  still   better 
(i  Cor.  vii.  I,  7,  28-31,  38).     Already,  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans,  whatever  exclusiveness  and  narrowness 
might   be   found   in  these   sayings   had    disappeared 
(Rom.  xiv.).     A  wider  view  of  the  matter  is  revealed. 
Evidently  the  apostle's  horizon  had  extended  in  the 
direction    of  the   future  ;    the   final    catastrophe   no 
longer  seems  imminent ;  family  and  social  life,  with 
their  duties,  resume  henceforth  their  value  and  impor- 
tance in  his  eyes.      Indeed,  it  is  above   all   in  this 
sphere  that  the  Christian  life  ought  to  unfold  itself. 
Nowhere    has    the    apostle    insisted    on   social    and 
domestic   duties    so    much    as    in    his    later    letters 
(Eph.  V.   15-vi.  9;   Col.  iii.   17-iv.  6;    Phil.  iv.  8,  9). 
Asceticism  is  radically  condemned,  both  in  its  prin- 
ciple and  its  precepts  (i  Tim.  iv.  1-5).      On  seeing 
it  preached    by  such  doubtful    teachers,   the  apostle 
became  more  sensible  of  its  danger. 

It  is  time  to  study  more  closely  the  character  of 
each  of  these  epistles. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE   EPISTLES   TO   PHILEMON,  TO   THE   COLOSSIANS, 
AND   TO   THE   EPHESIANS. 

THESE  three  letters  form  a  distinct  group  among  , 
the  epistles  of  the  Captivity,  and  must  not  be 
separated.  Written  at  the  same  time,  very  probably 
from  the  prison  at  Caesarea,  and  carried  to  Asia  Minor 
by  the  same  messengers,  they  preserve  striking  traces 
of  this  close  connexion  in  their  origin  (Philem.  lo 
— comp.  Col.  iv.  9 ;  Philem.  23,  24 — comp.  Col.  iv.  10, 
12,  14;  Philem.  2 — comp.  Col.  iv.  17;  Col.  iv.  7 — 
comp.  Eph.  vi.  21).  These  epistles,  in  fact,  mutually 
imply  each  other ;  and  it  soon  becomes  evident  that 
they  had  one  and  the  same  author. 

I.  The  Epistle  to  Philemon. 

If  they  are  not  Paul's,  it  must  be  acknowledged 
that  there  existed  a  writer  possessed  of  sufficient  skill 
and  information  to  invent  a  complete  and  happily 
conceived  historical  situation,  and  to  insert  in  the 
apostle's  life  without  violation  of  history  a  most 
reasonable  and  charming  romance.  To  admit  such 
a  fiction  will,  perhaps,  scarcely  seem  easier  than  to 
accept  the  apostolic  origin  of  these  three  letters. 

Onesimus,  one  of  Paul's  messengers,  was  a  fugitive 
slave.  He  had  been  converted  by  the  imprisoned 
apostle,   had   attached    himself    to   his    person,  and 

225  15 


226  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

lavished  his  services  upon  him.  He  belonged  to  a 
Christian  master  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Colossae, 
named  Philemon,  a  personal  friend  of  Paul.  The 
apostle  sends  him  back  in  charge  of  Tychicus,  and 
restores  him  to  his  master,  giving  him  a  brief  note 
written  in  his  own  hand,  designed  to  secure  his 
favourable  reception  by  Philemon. 

The  letter  only  contains  a  few  friendly  lines  ;  but 
they  are  so  full  of  grace  and  wit,  of  earnest,  trustful 
affection,  that  this  short  epistle  shines  among  the  rich 
treasures  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  pearl  of  ex- 
quisite fineness.  Never  has  there  been  a  better  fulfil- 
ment of  the  precept  given  by  Paul  himself  at  the  close 
of  his  letter  to  the  Colossians  :  6  Xo'70?  v/xwv  travTore. 
eV  yapiTi,  akari  r}pTVfievo<;,  eihevai  ttw?  Set  vfia'i  evl 
kKaartp  airoKpiveadai  (chap.  iv.  6).  Baur  sacrifices  it 
to  the  logic  of  his  system  somewhat  unwillingly. 
"  This  letter,"  he  says,  "  is  distinguished  by  the  private 
nature  of  its  contents  ;  it  has  nothing  of  those  common- 
places, those  general  doctrines  void  of  originality, 
those  repetitions  of  familiar  things,  which  are  so  fre- 
quent in  the  supposed  writings  of  the  apostle.  It 
deals  with  a  concrete  fact,  a  practical  detail  of  ordinary 
life.  .  .  .  What  objection  can  criticism  make  to 
these  pleasant  and  charming  lines,  inspired  by  the 
purest  Christian  feeling,  and  against  which  suspicion 
has  never  been  breathed  ?  "  ^  Alas  !  all  these  graces 
render  the  victim  more  interesting,  but  they  do  not 
save  it !  Beneath  its  innocent  and  candid  appearance 
this  epistle  conceals  what  astonishing  subtleties,  what 
a  treacherous  aim  !  Baur  has  discovered  a  mysterious 
design,  an  ambitious  dogmatic  purpose  underlying  it ; 

'  See  IJaur's  Paultt^,  vol,  ii.,  p.  82  [Eng.  trans.,  ii.,  p.  80]. 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  227 

and  the  poor  epistle  is  ruthlessly  condemned  !  This 
impeachment  of  Baur's,  however,  reminds  us  a  little 
of  that  of  the  wolf  against  the  lamb.  "  If  the  Pauline 
origin  of  the  other  epistles  of  the  Captivity,  especially 
that  of  the  Pastorals,"  says  he,  "^ives  rise  to  so  many 
objections  and  is  involved  in  so  many  difficulties,  if 
therefore  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  doubtful  whether 
we  have  any  letter  belonging  to  this  period  of  the 
apostle's  life,  how  could  this  little  friendly  note,  dealing 
with  a  matter  of  detail  and  private  life,  be  allowed  to 
make  an  exception  ?  "  Obviously,  this  is  the  wolfs 
final  argument :  If  it  was  not  thou,  it  was  thy  brother  ! 
The  little  note  may  be  innocent  in  itself,  but  it 
has  the  fault  and  the  misfortune  to  be  too  much 
akin  to  the  other  epistles,  with  their  very  suspicious 
character. 

The  complaint,  doubtless,  admits  of  no  reply.  But 
we  may  ask  whether  this  argument  would  not  hz 
of  equal  force  if  we  attempted  to  reverse  it  ?  Would 
it  be  less  logical  to  say  :  The  epistle  to  Philemon 
affords  no  ground  for  critical  suspicion  ;  and  since 
it  is  inseparably  connected  with  the  epistles  to  the 
Colossians  and  Ephesians,  its  existence  constitutes 
a  very  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  two  latter  ? 
In  fact,  this  short  letter  to  Philemon  is  so  intensely 
original,  so  entirely  innocent  of  dogmatic  preoccu- 
pation, and  Paul's  mind  has  left  its  impress  so  clearly 
and  indelibly  upon  it,  that  it  can  only  be  set  aside  by 
an  act  of  sheer  violence.  Linked  from  the  first  with 
the  two  epistles  to  which  we  have  just  referred,  it 
is  virtually  Paul's  own  signature  appended  as  their 
guarantee,  to  accompany  them  through  the  centuries. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  we  have  not  succeeded 
in   perceiving   the    profound    and    ambitious   design 


228  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

which  Baur  has  detected  in  the  letter  to  Philemon. 
We  take  it  simply  for  what  it  is, — that  is  to  say,  a 
petition  to  a  Christian  friend  on  behalf  of  his  slave. 
VVe  delight  to  meet  with  it  on  our  toilsome  road, 
and  to  rest  awhile  with  Paul  from  his  great  contro- 
versies and  fatiguing  labours  in  this  refreshing  oasis 
which  Christian  friendship  offered  to  him.  We  are 
accustomed  to  conceive  of  the  apostle  as  always 
armed  for  warfare,  sheathed  in  logic  and  bristling 
with  arguments.  It  is  delightful  to  find  him  at  his 
ease,  and  for  a  moment  able  to  unbend,  engaged  in 
this  friendly  intercourse  so  full  of  freedom  and  even 
playfulness  (vers,  ii,  19,  20). 

Paul  has  often  been  blamed  for  sending  Onesimus 
back  to  his  master.  His  conduct  has  been  regarded 
as  giving  sanction  to  slavery.  This  accusation  does 
not  seem  to  me  at  all  worthy  of  regard.  The  mighty 
force  of  the  Gospel,  which  in  regenerating  the  heart 
elevated  all  men,  and  created  a  new  society  without 
disturbing  existing  social  institutions,  is  perhaps  no- 
where better  exhibited  than  in  these  few  lines.  Where, 
I  ask,  could  we  find,  not  merely  a  more  radical  con- 
demnation of  the  causes  and  results  of  slavery,  but  a 
more  complete  emancipation  of  the  debased  slave? 
Have  we  not  here  the  practical  realization  of  the 
beautiful  Christian  idea  which  merges  all  social  dis- 
tinctions in  Christ,  and  restores  to  each  man  in  his 
neighbour  his  brother,  his  other  self,  uniting  them  as 
members  of  the  same  family  for  all  eternity  ?  "  I  do 
not  wish,"  writes  the  apostle  to  Philemon,  "  to  decree 
anything  authoritatively.  It  is  the  aged  Paul  who 
from  his  prison,  and  in  the  name  of  our  mutual  affec- 
tion, entreats  thee  on  behalf  of  his  son — that  .son  whom 
1  have  begotten  in  my  chains — Onesimus,  the  once 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  229 

lost  and  useless  slave,  who  now  returns  to  thee,  so 
dear  and  precious  both  to  thee  and  me.  .  .  .  Thou 
didst  lose  him  for  a  time  ;  thou  regainest  him  for 
eternity.  Receive  him  no  longer  as  a  slave,  but  as  a 
brother  in  the  flesh,  and  in  the  Lord,  If  thou  boldest 
me  for  a  friend,  receive  him  as  thou  wouldst  myself" 
This  epistle  is  not  merely  a  revelation  of  the  apostle's 
heart,  it  becomes  further,  through  its  moral  signifi- 
cance, an  invaluable  document  of  the  Pauline  ethics. 

II.   COLOSSIANS  AND   EPHESIANS. 

The  epistles  to  the  Colossians  and  the  Ephesians 
demand  more  extended  consideration.  Their  mutual 
relations  and  obviously  close  connexion  present  to 
criticism  the  most  difficult  of  problems.  De  VVette 
first  of  all  expressed  grave  doubts  of  the  apostolic 
origin  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians ;  in  the  end,  he 
absolutely  rejected  it.  A  strict  comparison  with  the 
letter  to  the  Colossians  was  decidedly  unfavourable  to 
it.  It  seemed  to  be  nothing  more  than  an  oratorical 
and  at  times  verbose  amplification  of  the  other  ;  and, 
though  not  deficient  in  merit,  it  was  at  least  wanting 
in  originality. 

But  de  Wette's  investigations,  although  so  accurate, 
were  incomplete.  The  question  wears  another  aspect, 
which  has  escaped  his  observation.  Everything  has 
not  been  said,  when  the  dependence  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  on  that  to  the  Colossians  is  once 
established.  He  should  have  asked  whether  this 
relation  is  not  mutual,  and  whether  the  epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  though  apparently  more  original,  is  not  in 
its  turn  inseparably  connected  with  Ephesians.  It  is 
not  surprising  that  the  question,  when  approached 
from   this   side,  has   received   an   opposite   solution. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Mayerhofif  and  Schncckcnburger  have  maintained, 
not  without  some  show  of  reason,  that  the  epistle  to 
the  Ephesians  was  the  original  and  primitive  letter. 
The  former,  indeed,  has  not  hesitated  to  bring  the 
same  accusation  of  plagiarism  against  Colossians  that 
de  Wctte  brought  against  Ephesians. 

It  becomes  apparent  from  these  conflicting  argu- 
ments that  the  dependence  of  the  two  letters  is  mutual, 
and  that  they  cannot  really  be  separated.  On  that 
point  Baur  was  not  mistaken.  Starting  with  the 
assumption  that  Ephesians  is  not  authentic — a  fact 
which  he  considered  demonstrated  by  de  VVette,  he 
had  no  difficulty  in  exhibiting  clearly  the  inner  soli- 
darity of  the  two  epistles  ;  and  he  insisted  with  logical 
force  that  the  fall  of  the  one  necessarily  involves  that 
of  the  other.  In  his  view,  the  identity  of  their  aim, 
method,  and  dogmatic  contents,  and  of  the  desig- 
nation of  their  messenger,  sufficiently  attest  their 
common  authorship.  It  will  perhaps  be  observed  that 
in  the  end,  and  by  this  roundabout  means,  Baur's 
criticism  almost  annihilates  those  observations  of  de 
VVette  which  in  the  first  instance  were  its  support  and 
starting-point.  After  reaching  this  conclusion,  what 
are  we  to  make  of  these  exegetical  and  literary  details 
which  betray  the  imitator's  hand  ?  If  there  is  pla- 
giarism, it  is  in  this  case  the  author  copying  himself! 
Baur  only  departs  from  the  original  tradition  on  one 
point:  he  refers  to  the  year  no  or  120  the  literary 
phenomenon  which  has  usually  been  placed  about 
60  A.D.  ;  and  he  assumes  as  very  probable  in  one 
of  Paul's  disciples  a  procedure  which  he  considers 
absolutely  impossible  in  the  case  of  Paul  himself 

In  this  way  modern  criticism  brings  us  back  to  its 
own  starting-point.     We  must,  in  fact,  complete  de 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  231 


Wette's  examination,  if  we  do  not  wish  to  be  misled 
at  the  outset  by  appearances.  We  have  not  here 
the  simple  relation  of  a  copy  to  its  original.  The 
question  is  more  complex  and  delicate.  The  coin- 
cidences of  the  two  epistles  are  not  merely  external. 
Their  unity  of  inspiration  is  even  more  striking  than 
their  resemblance  in  style.  In  both  there  is  the  same 
theological  standpoint,  and  the  same  errors  are  con- 
troverted. There  is  between  them,  if  I  may  so  speak, 
an  intimate  and  mutual  interpenetration.  The  same 
matter  is  digested  twice  over ;  but  the  relation  between 
the  two  treatises  is  such  that,  notwithstanding  their 
constant  resemblance,  there  is  never  on  the  one  hand 
absolute  originality,  nor  on  the  other  servile  imitation. 
And  we  have  no  more  ground  for  regarding  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  as  a  secondary  amplification  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Colossians  than  for  viewing  the  latter 
as  a  mere  summary  of  the  former. 

The  double  relationship  of  the  two  epistles  being 
once  thoroughly  apprehended,  there  can  no  longer  be 
any  doubt  of  their  common  origin.  Conceived  at  the 
same  time,  in  the  same  spirit,  and  produced  under  the 
same  circumstances,  carried  to  neighbouring  Churches 
by  the  same  messenger  Tychicus,  they  seem  to  us 
like  twin  sisters,  that  suffer  from  separation,  each  of 
them  complete  only  when  the  other  is  beside  her. 
They  are  in  secret  compact,  and  each  makes  allusion 
to  her  sister  in  ways  more  or  less  direct  or  obscure, 
but  nevertheless  conclusive. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  that  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  corresponds  with  the  epistle  to 
the  Colossians  ;  it  recalls  and  implies  it.  It  repro- 
duces its  main  ideas  and  characteristic  phrases,  and 
develops  the  same  theme.      At  one  point  this  tacit 


232  THE  APOSTLE  PAUV 

relation  is  conspicuous,  and  is  revealed  in  a  manner  so 
incidental  that  the  connexion  becomes  obvious  with- 
out there  being  any  possibiHty  of  regarding  it  as  the 
intentional  and  studied  work  of  a  forger.  Ephesians 
vi.  21  contains  a  manifest  allusion  to  Colossians  iv.  7. 
The  author  did  not  write  the  former  passage  w  ithout 
thinking  of  the  latter :  "Iva  elSrJTe  koX  vfiel<i  to,  kut 
fc>e.  This  conjunction  kui,  contained  in  all  the  manu- 
scripts, would  be  inexplicable  without  the  parallel 
passage  in  Colossians,  Now  can  we  imagine  that 
an  imitator,  after  having  composed  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  and  conceiving  the  idea  of  connecting  it 
with  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians,  would  have  con- 
fined himself  in  carrrying  out  his  project  to  this 
simple  conjunction  ?  Such  a  proceeding  requires  a 
skill  and  delicacy  beyond  belief. 

The  epistle  to  the  Colossians,  in  its  turn,  corre- 
sponds with  that  to  the  Ephesians  ;  it  assumes  it  and 
refers  us  to  it.  To  be  convinced  of  this,  we  must  first 
of  all  abandon  the  common  notion  that  the  latter  is  an 
epistle  addressed  specially  to  the  Church  at  Ephesus. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  words  ev  'E0eo-oi>,  of  the 
superscription,  are  wanting  in  the  most  ancient  manu- 
scripts, and  that  Marcion  read,  on  the  contrary,  iv 
AaoSiKeia.  What  is  still  more  decisive,  is  the  fact 
that  the  so  called  letter  to  the  Ephesians  was  ad- 
dressed to  readers  whom  Paul  had  never  seen,  and 
who  had  never  seen  him  (Eph.  i.  15-19;  iii.  1-4; 
iv.  17-22).  Who  then  were  these  readers?  It  is  plain 
that  they  must  be  sought  for  not  far  from  Colossae, 
since  the  same  messenger  is  charged  with  both  letters. 

A  passage  in  the  letter  to  the  Colossians,  hitherto 
overlooked  by  critics,  seems  to  me  to  indicate  them 
clearly  enough  :  deXco  yap  v/xd<:  elSivac  r}\iKov  aywva 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  233 

e^o)  TvepX  v[xo}V  Koi  raiv  iv  AaohiKeia  Koi  oaoi  ou^ 
ecopaKav  to  'TrpoacoTToy  fxou  eV  aapKi  (Col.  ii.  l).  This 
passage  proves  that  the  author  of  Colossians  had, 
when  writing,  several  groups  of  readers  in  view — two 
at  any  rate — that  of  the  Church  of  Coloss^e,  and  that 
of  the  Church  of  Laodicea  and  other  Churches  who 
were  unacquainted  with  the  apostle.  Does  not  this 
latter  expression  admirably  describe  the  readers  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians  ?  Moreover,  the  author  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  wrote  two  letters — one  to 
the  Church  of  Colossal,  and  another  which  he  describes 
as  intended  to  be  sent  on  to  Colossae  from  Laodicea 
(Col.  iv.  16).  Can  this  be  any  other  than  the  letter  to 
the  Ephesians?  Whoever  has  duly  appreciated  the 
intimate  connexion  of  the  two  epistles  will  not  for  a 
moment  doubt  that  the  author  to  the  Colossians  refers 
in  this  passage  to  the  letter  that  we  now  possess,  and 
which  bears  the  address  of  Ephesus. 

Does  it  follow  that  Marcion  was  right  in  reading  ev 
AaoBiKeia  for  iu  ^E<j)€a(p  ?  Certainly  not.  Marcion 
only  made  a  conjecture,  on  the  strength  of  the  gap  in 
the  manuscripts,  and  one  which  arose  naturally  from 
this  very  passage  (Col.  iv.  16).  Marcion's  testimony 
at  least  proves  that  no  other  letter  to  the  Laodiceans 
was  known  to  early  Christian  antiquity.  But  we 
hasten  to  add  that  Marcion,  and  after  him  all  critics 
who  adopted  his  suggestion,  both  misread  and  still 
more  misinterpreted  the  passage  in  Colossians  on 
which  they  relied.  The  text,  in  fact,  does  not  indicate 
a  special  letter  sent  from  Paul  to  the  Laodiceans. 
The  existing  epistle  cannot  have  been  addressed  to 
Laodicea  in  particular,  any  more  than  to  Ephesus. 
If  Paul  had  addressed  his  letter  to  the  Christians  of 
Laodicea,  how  could  he  have  sent  greeting  to  them 


234  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


and  their  pastor  Xymphas  through  those  of  Colossae, 
instead  of  appending  his  salutations  to  the  letter  he 
was  sending  directly  to  themselves  ?  But,  in  point 
of  fact,  we  do  not  read  in  Colossians  iv.  i6  Trjv  eh 
AaoSiKeiav,  but  rr/j/  e'/e  AaoSiKeia^  ;  that  is,  f/ie  letter 
which  will  reach yoK  front  Laodicca,  and  not  the  letter 
which  I  have  addressed  to  Laodicea.  The  epistle 
must  have  been  addressed  to  a  circle  of  Churches  in 
the  neighbourhood  which  had  never  seen  Paul. 

We  will  not  pursue  the  discussion  further.  The 
mutual  affinity  and  solidarity  of  the  two  letters  must 
be  seen  to  be  sufficiently  established.  Baur's  demon- 
stration on  this  head  is  irrefragable.  The  two  letters 
come  to  us  from  one  and  the  same  author,  who  while 
writing  one  had  the  other  planned  in  his  mind,  and  in 
composing  the  second  did  not  forget  the  first  Every 
attempt  to  separate  them  is  doomed  to  failure.  They 
will  always  stand  or  fall  together.  In  these  later 
days  criticism  seems  to  have  better  understood  the 
complexity  of  this  literary  problem,  and  has  invented 
another  hypothesis  for  its  solution.  An  attempt  has 
been  made  to  discover  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians 
an  authentic  nucleus,  by  the  help  of  which  a  later 
writer  might  first  of  all  have  drawn  up  the  epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  returning  afterwards  to  Paul's  own 
letter  and  amplifying  it  freely,  in  order  to  make  it 
more  conformable  with  his  own  work,  hoping  thus  to 
conceal  his  device.  History,  and  still  more  a  candid 
exegesis,  condemn  this  strange  solution,  which  finds 
its  impracticability  so  little  of  an  embarrassment. 

III.  Progress  of  Paul's  Doctrine. 
The  apostle,  in  these  two  epistles,  does  not  resume 
the  dialectical  exposition  of  his  doctrine  of  justifica- 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  235 


tion  by  faith.  But  it  is  easy  to  discover  and  trace 
in  them  the  anthropological  and  soteriological  basis 
of  Paulinism  (Eph.  ii.  8-10;  Col.  ii.  12-14;  Phil.  iii. 
3-10;  Eph.  i.  13,  14;  Col.  iii.  1-3).  The  union  and 
perfect  equality  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  Christ,  so 
keenly  contested  in  the  preceding  period,  are  here  set 
forth  as  accomplished  facts  ;  this  victory  is  won  (Col. 
iii.  11).  The  lofty  standpoint  reached  by  the  apostle 
in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  firmly  maintained 
and  powerfully  vindicated  (Eph.  ii.  11-19;  Col.  i. 
20-23).  But  all  these  preceding  conquests  are  only 
the  basis  and  starting  point  of  a  new  development. 

It  is  here,  in  fact,  that  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians 
takes  up  the  doctrinal  work  of  the  apostle,  to  continue 
it  in  a  new  sphere.  We  now  pass  the  boundaries 
of  history  and  time,  and  plunge  into  the  realm  of 
metaphysics  ;  for  it  is  really  an  essay  in  Christian 
metaphysics  that  Paul  is  about  to  make.  The  Person 
of  Christ  will  of  course  be  the  corner-stone  of  this 
edifice.^  Passing  by  the  earlier  conditions  and  his- 
torical stages  through  which  the  Divine  plan  has  been 
accomplished,  Paul  apprehends  the  redemption  as 
an  eternal  thought  of  God.  This  Divine  conception 
becomes  the  generative  principle  of  all,  future  evolu- 
tion. It  is  the  cause  and  end  of  the  entire  creation  ; 
it  explains  ev^erything,  because  it  produced  every- 
thing. The  Gospel,  hitherto  conceived  of  merely  as 
a  means  of  salvation,  is  thus  raised  through  the 
apostle's  persistent  study  to  the  height  of  a  universal 


'  The  thought  of  the  author  of  the  F^ourth  Gospel  pursued 
a  kindred  development.  The  Pauline  theosophy  and  the 
Johannine  mysticism,  whilst  diverse  in  origin,  are  united  in 
their  end. 


236  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

principle.  We  must,  however,  hasten  to  add  that 
while  thus  opening  new  vistas  to  Christian  doctrine, 
by  making  the  Gospel  the  subject  of  lofty  contem- 
plation, Paul  is  careful  not  to  change  the  living 
realities  of  faith  into  barren  abstractions  or  transform 
the  moral  drama  of  the  redemption  into  a  law  of 
necessary  development.  His  doctrine  is  enlarged  and 
elevated,  without  losing  any  of  its  moral  fulness  and 
quality.  But  it  had  to  create  new  forms  for  its  new 
matter;  and  some  of  his  expressions,  such  as  TrX-qpwfia 
and  alcbve<i,  while  retaining  their  historical  meaning 
(Eph.  i.  10  ;  ii.  7),  acquire  a  metaphysical  significance 
which  they  did  not  possess  in  the  previous  epistles. 

Does  this  imply,  as  Baur  supposed,  that  the  writer 
has  borrowed  from  the  Gnostic  systems  of  the 
early  part  of  the  second  century  ?  It  seems  to  us 
that  the  change  in  Paul's  vocabulary  has  a  simpler 
explanation,  that  it  is  in  fact  a  necessary  consequence 
of  the  advance  of  his  doctrine.  If  there  has  been  any 
borrowing,  it  is  rather  on  the  side  of  Basilides  and 
Valentinian,  who  most  certainly  formed  their  dialect 
on  the  religious  phraseology  of  the  New  Testament.^ 
Indeed,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  in  our  epistles  this 
terminology  as  yet  is  vague,  and  wavers  between 
the  popular  and  Gnostic  meaning,  and  that  no  strict 
and  settled  order  in  the  hierarchy  of  celestial  beings 
is  here  imagined.  In  the  second  century,  on  the 
contrary,  all  this  was  arranged  and  determined  with 
mathematical  accuracy.  It  will  always  be  difficult  to 
believe  that  a  Gnosticism  of  quite  undeveloped  form 
is  posterior'  to  that  which  had  attained  its  full  per- 
fection.   Certainly,  Paul  follows  the  daring  speculation 

*  See  TertuUian,  Dc  prascriptione  hareticontm^  chap.,  xxxvii.    • 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  237 


of  the  new  teachers  into  the  transcendental  regions  of 
the  invisible  world.  He  also  sees  fit  to  make,  on  his 
own  account,  a  cursory  enumeration  of  the  spiritual 
powers  (Eph.  i.  21  ;  Col.  i.  16)  ;  for  he  has  the  spirit 
of  the  age,  and  reasons  in  the  same  manner.  But  he 
shows  no  interest,  no  curiosity  about  the  subject. 
His  sole  purpose  is  to  make  Jesus  Christ  sovereign  in 
heaven,  as  well  as  upon  and  beneath  the  earth  (Eph. 
i.  10,  21,  22  ;  Col.  ii.  15). 

It  is  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  that  the 
apostle  unfolds  and  sets  forth  the  eternal  plan  of 
redemption,  as  it  embraces  not  only  the  course  of  the 
ages,  but  the  whole  universe.  This  conception,  which 
forms  the  basis  of  the  epistle,  gives  it  its  original  and 
distinctive  character.  Having  in  his  letter  to  the 
Colossians  disposed  of  the  controversial  question  and 
of  all  incidental  and  personal  matters,  the  apostle  is 
here  absorbed  in  this  great  idea,  which  he  delights  to 
set  forth  in  all  its  fulness. 

The  basis  of  redemption  is  the  grace  of  God  (chap, 
ii.  6,  7).  This  unconditional  grace,  the  absolute  and 
eternal  act  of  the  Divine  will,  is  the  source  of  the  pre- 
destination already  indicated  in  Romans  viii.  29 ;  and 
it  is  developed  with  great  affluence  of  expression 
in  the  first  chapter  of  Ephesians :  "  Blessed  be  God 
our  Father,  who  elected  us  before  the  creation  of  the 
world  to  be  holy  and  without  spot  before  Him  ; 
having  beforehand  decreed  our  adoption  in  Jesus 
Christ,  in  whom  we  have  the  pardon  of  our  sins 
according  to  the  riches  of  His  grace.  Thus  He  has 
made  known  to  us  the  mystery  of  His  will,  which 
according  to  His  good  pleasure  he  had  purposed  in 
Himself"  This  plan  of  redemption  remained  un- 
comprehended  and  unrevealed  until  the  time  of  its 


238  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


full  realization.  Paul  calls  it  a  mystery  (chap.  i.  9  ; 
comp.  I  Cor.  ii.  7).  As  this  mystery  was  revealed  in 
Christ,  and  Christ  is  its  essential  content,  it  is  also 
the  mystery  of  Christ,  or  the  mystery  of  the  Gospel 
(chaps,  iii.  4;  vi.  19  ;  comp.  Rom.  xvi.  25).  That  which 
had  not  become  matter  of  history  existed  in  this 
way  beforehand  in  the  mind  of  God.  Salvation  was 
actual,  though  not  manifested.  In  this  sense  it  is 
also  regarded  as  a  heritage  reserved  for  the  faithful, 
of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts 
is  already  the  certain  guarantee  (chap.  i.  13,  14,  18; 
comp.  Rom.  viii.  16  and  2  Cor.  i.  22). 

This  plan  of  salvation,  the  eternal  conception  of 
God,  is  a  Divine  economy  of  the  times  and  the  worlds 
(chap.  i.  10).  This  economy,  this  plan  of  the  ages 
(TTpodecL^  rwv  alcovcov),  is  a  work  of  wisdom.  Through 
it  is  revealed  and  made  known  in  its  wealth  of  variety 
the  Divine  wisdom,  so  fertile  in  its  resources  and  rich 
in  its  means  (/}  TroXi/Troi/ciXo?  ao<f)La  rov  Oeov,  chap.  iii. 
10).  Thus,  in  the  general  economy,  is  ordained  the 
succession  of  special  economies,  which  simply  mark 
stages  in  the  progress  of  the  work  of  universal  re- 
demption. This  salvation,  conceived  in  eternity  and 
prepared  in  preceding  ages,  is  revealed  in  its  own 
time,  which  is  the  very  fulness  of  the  times  (Gal.  iv. 
4 ;  Eph.  i.  10).  But  any  one  who  has  thoroughly 
apprehended  the  nature  of  the  Pauline  doctrine  must 
know  that  it  is  pre-eminently  realistic  and  matter  of 
fact.  It  never  represents  the  revelation  of  God  as  the 
exhibition  of  an  abstract  idea,  but  as  the  unfolding  of 
a  Divine  operation.  The  consummation  of  revelation 
is  therefore,  at  the  same  time,  the  consummation  of 
God's  creative  work  ;  and  the  pleroma  of  things  corre- 
sponds of  necessity  with  the  pleroma  of  times.     The 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  239 


word  ifKrjpoiixa  thus  passes  naturally  from  its  original 
to  its  metaphysical  signification. 

The  starting  point  of  this  idea — a  leading  charac- 
teristic of  these  epistles — is  in  i  Corinthians  xv.  28. 
According  to  this  passage,  the  supreme  design  of  God, 
carried  out  in  the  whole  creation  throughout  the  entire 
succession  of  ages,  is  to  permeate  andji//  all  things,  to 
become  all  in  all.  The  apostle's  doctrine,  developing 
in  this  direction,  conceived  of  the  Divine  action  as 
pouring  all  its  riches  into  the  Persoh  of  Christ,  who 
thus  actually  becomes  i\\c  pleroj/ia  of  Divinity.  Christ 
in  His  turn  constantly  pours  out  and  communicates  all 
His  riches  upon  and  to  His  Church,  which  becomes 
the  pleronia  of  Christ,  the  complete  realization  of  His 
virtue.  His  actual  body,  precisely  as  Christ  was  the 
corporeal  manifestation  (croyfiaTiKa)^)  of  the  Divine 
plenitude.  Thus  God  fills  Christ  ;  Christ  fills  the 
Church ;  and  the  Church,  extending  to  the  limits  of 
all  things,  fills  the  universe  (chaps,  iii.  19 ;  i.  23). 

The  crisis  of  this  Divine  action  is  the  appearance 
of  Jesus  upon  earth ;  and  in  that  appearance,  His 
death  upon  the  cross.  The  centre  of  gravity  of 
Christ's  work  has  not  been  removed.  The  historical 
cause  of  redemption  is  still  the  Saviour's  expiatory 
death  (chaps,  i.  7;  ii.  13,  16;  Col.  ii.  14,  15).  The  cir- 
cumference is  enlarged  ;  the  centre  remains  the  same. 
It  is  from  this  standpoint  that  Paul  contemplates  the 
progressive  realization  of  the  plan  of  God,  advancing 
towards  its  final  goal,  the  reconciliation  of  all  opposi- 
tions, and  the  consummation  in  Christ  of  the  unity 
of  the  world.  Thus  has  the  barrier  been  overthrown 
already  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  (to  fieaoroi'^ov  rov 
<f>paj/jLov),  now  brought  near  and  united  in  one  and 
the  same  body  by  the  virtue  of  the  cross  (<Tuaao)/j.a, 


240  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

chap.  ii.  13-16).  This  work  of  reconciliation  is  to 
extend,  not  only  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  human 
race,  but  to  the  whole  universe :  "  For  it  has  pleased 
God  to  reconcile  all  things  in  Him,  having  made 
peace  by  the  blood  of  His  cross,  whether  on  earth  or 
in  heaven  "  (Col.  i.  19,  20). 

This  infinite  extension  of  Christ's  work  implies  of 
necessity  a  parallel  exaltation  of  His  Person.  Since 
it  is  in  and  through  Him  that  God  realizes  His 
eternal  thought,  Christ  becomes  by  that  very  fact  the 
actual  medium  of  the  Divine  revelation  and  working. 
His  Person  now  assumes  in  the  transcendental  region 
of  metaphysics  the  supreme  and  kingly  place  that  it 
already  possesses  in  the  Christian  consciousness.  To 
it  must  be  referred  the  work  of  creation,  as  well  as 
that  of  redemption.  In  it  is  attained  the  final  unity 
of  all  things.  The  centre  of  the  Gospel  becomes  the 
centre  of  the  universe.  The  moral  principle  of  the 
Christian  life  is  also  the  metaphysical  principle  of  the 
creation. 

IV.  The  Christology  of  Colossians. 

This  transcendental  Christology,  implied  through- 
out the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  constitutes  the 
special  object  of  the  letter  to  the  Colossians.  The 
apostle  remains  at  the  same  standpoint,  and  the 
same  horizon  stretches  before  him  ;  but  instead  of 
considering,  as  before,  the  work  of  redemption  as  a 
whole,  his  attention  is  concentrated  on  the  Person  of 
Christ,  in  which  moreover  this  work  is  summed  up. 
The  conception  that  he  gives  us  of  this  Person  rises 
almost  to  the  height  of  the  Johannine  Christology. 
The  name  \0709  alone  is  wanting.  But  the  actual 
name,   which    possibly    Paul    intentionally   avoided, 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  241 


would    scarcely  modify  in    any  way  his   conception 
(Col.  i.  17  ;  comp.  John  i.  3,  4). 

In  his  previous  epistles  the  apostle  had  not 
formulated  any  precise  Christological  doctrine.  It 
would  be  indeed  a  vain  attempt  to  try  to  discover  in 
them  all  the  ideas  of  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  in  the  earlier 
epistles  to  exclude  by  anticipation  the  development 
here  assumed  by  the  Pauline  Christolog)-.  We  may 
gather  from  them  some  indications  which  prepare  us 
for  it.  •  The  notion  of  the  ideal,  or  celestial  man 
(i  Cor.  XV.  47;  Rom.  v.  15)  does  not  exhaust  the 
apostle's  conception.  The  unique  and  sovereign  place 
which  he  accorded  Christ  in  his  inner  consciousness, 
the  absolute  dependence  which  he  felt  with  regard  to 
Him,  the  worship  he  rendered  Him,  in  which  he  never 
separates  Him  from  God,  must  inevitably  have  led  him 
on,  sooner  or  later,  to  loftier  conclusions.  Let  us  read 
over  again  2  Corinthians  xiii.  14 ;  i  Corinthians  xii. 
5-1 1.  True,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  formu- 
lated in  these  two  passages  ;  but  whoever  will  compare 
them,  and  observe  how  Paul,  in  expressing  the  verj- 
foundation  of  his  Christian  convictions,  spontaneously 
attributes  to  the  Spirit,  to  the  Lord,  and  to  God  an 
absolutely  equal  share  in  the  work  of  redemption, 
will  easily  satisfy  himself  that  there  exists  here  the 
germ  of  an  idea  which  will  carry  the  writer  much 
further.  Nor  are  these  isolated  and  singular  texts. 
We  will  not  dwell  on  Romans  ix.  5,  the  interpretation 
of  which  is  so  much  disputed.  But  let  us  consider 
2  Corinthians  iii.  17.  Paul  does  not  say,  o  Kvpio(; 
Try^vfjid  eaTLV ;  but  he  says  absolutely,  o  KvpLo<;  to 
irvevfid  eVrtv.  Is  there  not  something  here  which  goes 
beyond  the  idea  of  the  "  celestial  man  "  ?     Once  more, 

16 


242  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

let  us  look  at  l  Corinthians  viii.  6  :  el?  Geo?  e|^  ov 
TO,  TTtivTa  .  .  .  fl?  Kvpio'i  ^Iijaov^  Xpt,(TT6<;,  Bl  ov  ^ 
TO.  Trdvra  kol  r^jieh  Bl  auTov.  Baur  limits  this  ex- 
pression, Bl  ov  to.  TrdvTa  to  the  work  of  redemption. 
But  is  not  this  an  arbitrary  restriction  ?  Are  not 
the  two  propositions  exactly  parallel,  and  equally 
absolute  ?  The  context  of  the  passage  has  a  general 
bearing  ;  it  puts  the  contrast  between  the  monotheistic 
and  the  polytheistic  idea,  stated  in  most  general 
terms.  God  is  said  to  be  the  absolute  source  of  all 
things,  and  Christ  His  one  Agent.  Baur's  expla- 
nation recalls  those  of  the  Socinians,  who  succeeded 
also  in  disposing  of  John's  prologue  and  of  the  state- 
ments of  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians,  by  restricting 
them  to  the  Gospel  economy.  This  passage,  besides, 
should  be  compared  with  the  one  preceding  it. 
Seeing  that  Christ  is  the  Spirit,  in  an  absolute  sense, 
is  it  incredible  that  Paul  should  have  seen  in  this 
Spirit  the  principal  of  the  creation  as  well  as  of 
redemption  ?  No  doubt,  there  is  not  here  all  that  we 
shall  find  in  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians.  But  we 
have  the  germ  out  of  which  the  Christology  of  later 
letters  was  developed.  On  this,  as  on  all  other  points, 
we  may  assert  that  there  was  progress  in  the  Pauline 
doctrine, — but  progress  with  continuity. 

To  sum  up  the  Christology  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Colossians  :  Christ  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God  ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  visible  manifestation  of  God's 
invisible  essence  (chap.  i.  15).  He  is,  from  the  meta- 
physical point  of  view,  the  essential  Mediator  between 

*  The  Codex  Vaticanus  lias  81'  ov  instead  of  81'  ov.  But  there 
are  no  reasons,  other  than  dogmatic,  for  preferring  this  reading 
to  that  of  all  the  other  manuscripts. 


THE  ASTATIC  EPISTLES.  243 


God  and  the  world.  It  is  through  Him  that  God 
imparts  Himself  to  the  world,  and  that  the  world 
returns  to  God.  No  doubt  the  expression  irpwTOJoico'i 
irdai]^  KTiaeax;  puts  Christ  in  absolute  subordination, 
and  associates  Him  with  creation,  placing  Him  indeed 
at  its  head,  but  also  in  the  rank  of  creatures.^  On 
the  other  hand,  in  face  of  the  creation,  He  is  raised  to 
the  same  level  with  God  ;  for  God  has  been  pleased  to 
pour  into  Him  the  plenitude  of  His  divinity  (Col.  ii. 
9).  "  In  Him  all  things  were  created,  in  the  heavens 
and  on  the  earth,  the  visible  and  the  invisible.  He  is 
before  all  things,  and  all  things  have  the  basis  of  their 
existence  in  Him  "  (ja  travra  iv  uvtm  avyeaT-qtcev). 
He  is  the  Divine  TrXtjpco/xa  ;  i.e.,  in  Him  is  the  pleni- 
tude, the  totality  of  existence  to  be  realized  in  the 
world  (chap.  i.  19).  He  is  more  particularly  the  Head 
of  the  Church,  the  First-born  of  the  resurrection  as 
of  the  creation,  everywhere  having  the  pre-eminence 
(eV  irdaiv  avTo<;  •n-pcorevcov,  chap.  i.  1 8). 

To  comprehend  these  statements  fully,  we  must 
admit  the  controversial  aim  which  already  begins  to 
appear.  The  apostle  seeks  to  give  Christ  supremacy 
in  all  things,  so  that  His  dignity  shall  not  be  dimi- 
nished nor  His  glory  eclipsed  in  the  hierarchy  of  seons 
set  up  between  God  and  the  world.  Christ  is  not  a 
single  seon,  one  of  a  crowd — not  a  part  of  things — but 
the  irXijpcDfia.  From  Him  the  whole  series  of  celestial 
and  terrestrial  beings  derive  their  life  ;  to  Him  they 
must  ever  return,  if  they  would  not  be  separated 
from  God.     Paul  knows  but  one  Mediator  in  earth 

[ '  On  this  phrase  see  Lijjhtfoot,  or  Meyer  ad  loc.  "  First- 
born  in  respect  of  all  creation''''  sets  Christ  in  express  contrast 
to  the  creatures.  Comp.  Heb.  iii.  6 :  "  Christ  as  a  Hon  over  His 
(God's)  house.''] 


244  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


and  heaven.  The  work  of  mediation  and  universal 
reconciliation  is  not  a  collective  work  ;  the  apostle 
does  not  suffer  it  to  be  shared.  Redemption  is  the 
work  of  the  Crucified.  In  Him  alone  God  reconciles 
all  things.  It  is  by  the  blood  of  His  cross  that  peace 
has  been  made  in  the  visible  and  invisible  universe 
{jdpy)vQ'iTOir](ja^  8ia  tov  al'fiaTo<i  tov  aravpov  avTov). 

From  this  point  of  view  is  obviously  and  naturally 
explained  the  passage  in  Colossians  ii.  15,  which  has 
been  so  tortured  by  commentators  :  d7reKBvadfxevo<i  rd<i 
up^a<;  KOI  T«<?  i^oucrta<;,  iSeiyfiaTiaev  iv  irapprjaia, 
6piafjL0€vaa<;  auroi"?  ev  avTM  ?  What  are  these  cip-)(al 
and  e^ovaiai?  The  majority  of  commentators,  in- 
cluding de  Wette  and  Meyer,  regard  them  as  demons, 
powers  of  sin  and  hell,  and  refer  for  proof  to  Eph.  vi. 
12.  But  the  two  passages  are  neither  similar  nor 
parallel.  We  might  ask,  moreover,  what  the  triumph 
of  God  and  Christ  over  the  diabolical  powers  has 
to  do  with  this  passage  of  Colossians  ?  Considering 
that  the  apostle  has  spoken  already  in  Col.  i.  16  of 
the  apxcLi-  and  i^ovariat,  and  still  continues  within  the 
same  circle  of  ideas,  there  is  absolutely  no  authority 
for  seeing  in  the  second  passage  any  powers  other 
than  those  mentioned  in  the  first.  Now  in  Colossians 
i.  16,  there  is  no  question  at  all  of  infernal  powers, 
but  of  those  intermediate  beings  that  theory  had 
multiplied  between  the  world  and  God,  and  amongst 
whom  speculation  distributed  the  work  and  the 
honour  of  universal  redemption.  Of  this  honour 
Christ  has  deprived  them  ;  of  this  undeser\'ed  glory 
He  despoiled  them  by  His  death  on  the  cross.  God 
has  made  Him  Lord  of  all  these  powers,  which  now 
only  ser\^e  in  their  vanquishment  to  adorn  His  trium- 
phal  chariot.     This   passage,   which   was   useless  in 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  245 


its  traditional  interpretation,  and  counted  for  nothing 
in  the  apostle's  argument,  is  thus  seen  to  be  a  de- 
cisive blow  directed  against  the  radical  principle  of 
the  Gnostic  speculation. 

Paul  does  no  more  than  rapidly  traverse  these  lofty 
regions  of  the  transcendental  world  ;  he  confines  him- 
self to  dispelling  the  clouds  which  might  veil  from 
our  eyes  the  greatness  of  the  Person  and  the  work 
of  Jesus.  Only  this  purpose  detains  him  there.  He 
speaks  of  this  invisible  world  with  admirable  sobriety; 
and  hastens  to  descend  into  the  sphere  of  practical 
life,  of  which  he  has  never  lost  sight.  But  he  returns 
bringing  to  it  new  wealth  of  thought.  Upon  the 
heights  he  has  reached,  he  apprehends  the  relation 
of  Christ  to  the  Church  from  a  new  point  of  view. 

Already,  in  Romans  xii.  5  and  i  Corinthians  xii. 
12-27,  the  Church  had  been  regarded  as  an  organic 
and  substantial  reality,  a  body  whose  members  are 
individuals,  and  which  manifests  in  its  permanent 
unity  the  wealth  lying  hidden  in  its  principle  of  life. 
It  has  been  already  designated  the  body  of  Christ 
(u/i,et<?  Se  eVre  o-oi/xa  XpiaTov,  I  Cor.  xii.  27), — that  is 
to  say,  a  body  having  the  root  of  its  existence  and  its 
principle  of  unity  in  the  Person  of  the  Saviour.  This 
appellation,  t/ie  body  of  Christ,  is  something  more  than 
a  metaphor.  The  Church  is  not  conceived  of  apart 
from  Christ,  nor  Christ  apart  from  the  body  of  the 
Church;  but  Christ  continues  present  in  the  Church 
as  its  immanent  principle  of  life.  Finally,  the  apostle 
treated  the  Church  as  the  virgin  affianced  to  Christ 
(2  Cor.  xi.  2)  ;  he  suggested  the  same  relation  in  i 
Corinthians  xi.  3,  where  Christ  is  called  head  (Ke^aki)) 
of  the  man,  as  the  man  is  head  of  the  woman. 

The   speculative   reflections  to  which  the  apostle 


246  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


ri^es  in  the  epistles  of  the  Captivity  give  these 
ideas  a  new  significance.  The  title  of  awp-a  acquires 
a  transcendental  import  which  it  did  not  formerly 
possess ;  Paul  no  longer  says  crw/ia  Xpta-rov,  but, 
in  an  absolute  sense,  rb  (ra)/j,a  toO  XpiaTov.  In  the 
former  idiom  XpiaTov  is  an  objective  genitive ;  in  the 
latter  it  becomes  a  subjective  genitive.  In  the  first  in- 
stance, the  Church  depends  on  Christ  for  its  existence ; 
in  the  second,  Christ  Himself  has  need  of  the  Church 
to  manifest  all  the  plenitude  of  the  life  within  Him. 
Not  that  Paul  has  adopted  a  new  mode  of  thought ; 
but  evidently  he  has  changed  his  point  of  view. 
Formerly,  he  ascended  from  the  Church  to  Christ ; 
now,  starting  with  the  idea  of  the  transcendental 
Christ,  he  contemplates  the  progressive  manifestation 
and  realization  in  the  Church  of  the  possibilities  latent 
in  Him.  The  Person  of  Christ  is  already  the  Church 
potentially  {in  potentia)  ;  and  the  Church  is  Christ 
Himself  manifested  (/;/  actu). 

It  would  be  easy  by  abuse  of  logic  to  push  this 
spiritual  unity  of  Christ  and  the  Church  to  the  point 
of  metaphysical  identification.  Paul  himself,  let  us 
say  at  once,  did  not  go  to  this  length  ;  his  doctrine  is 
entirely  distinct  from  all  pantheistic  speculations  on 
the  subject.  He  holds,  indeed,  that  the  Church  exists 
only  in  Christ ;  but  he  does  not  assert  that  Christ 
exists  only  in  the  Church.  The  Person  of  Christ 
is  rooted  in  God  Himself,  We  have  not  to  deal 
here  with  a  series  of  abstractions  equivalent  to  each 
other  ;  but  with  a  processus  of  life,  an  organism  con- 
sisting of  living  beings,  who  are  distinct  without  being 
separated,  and  organically  united  without  losing 
their  identity. 

The  term  crwyua  obviously  gains  its  full   meaning 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  247 

only  b}'  combination  with  irKi'ipcdixa,  which  at  the 
bottom  expresses  the  same  idea  under  another  form 
(^Ti?  iarl  TO  aoiy/Jia  avrov,  ro  TrXyjpcofia  toO  to.  nruvza 
€p  iraat  TrXrjpov/jLevov,  Eph.  i.  23).  This  passage  is 
the  summary  of  all  the  ideas  developed  in  the  two 
epistles.  From  the  standpoint  we  have  reached,  it 
is  its  own  interpretation.  Just  as  Christ  is  the  pleni- 
tude, the  actual  manifestation — we  might  almost  say 
the  acofia — of  God  {a(o/j.aTiica)<;  KaroiKU  irdv  to  ttXt;- 
pcDfxa  rfj'i  6e6TT]To<i),  so  the  Church  is  the  pleroma  of 
Christ,  the  body  in  which  all  the  plenitude  of  the  life 
within  Him  is  realized.  But  as,  after  all,  Christ 
communicates  nothing  which  does  not  come  from 
God,  the  Church,  from  the  ideal  point  of  view,  may  be 
justly  called  the  actualized  pleroma  of  God,  who  fills 
all  in  all.  Thus  the  Church  and  Christ  are  related  to 
each  other  as  soul  and  body.  The  soul  animates  the 
body;  and  the  body  makes  manifest  the  virtues  of 
the  soul.  Thus  it  was  that  Paul  could  assert  that 
the  sufferings  of  the  Christian  are  the  filling  up  of 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  Himself  (Col.  i.  24)  ;  for  the 
Church  is  simply  the  prolonging  of  Christ's  life,  pre- 
sent and  immanent  in  her,  as  the  vivifying  principle 
from  which  comes  her  growth  and  strength.  This 
new  conception  is  admirably  expressed  in  several 
passages,  the  fulness  and  vigour  of  which  cannot  be 
rendered  in  any  translation  (Col.  ii.  19;  Eph.  iv.  15, 
16  ;  ii.  21). 

Finally,  the  relations  of  Christ  and  the  Church  find 
perfect  expression  in  the  image  of  the  intimate  union 
established  between  the  man  and  woman  by  mar- 
riage (Eph.  v.  22-25).  This  analogy  furnishes  the 
apostle  in  return  with  an  admirable  conception  of 
marriage,  far  superior  to  that  which  he  had  given 


24S  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


in  I  Corinthians.  The  man  and  the  woman  form 
an  indissoluble  organic  unity.  Neither  of  the  two 
attains  full  existence  without  the  other.  While  the 
man  is  the  head  of  the  woman  (K€<f>a\i)  t^9  yvvaiKo^), 
the  woman  on  her  part  is  called  the  dodj'  of  the 
man  (ariLfiara  tcov  dvBpcov,  chap.  v.  28),  in  the  same 
sense  as  the  Church  is  the  body  of  Christ.  Thus 
each  belongs  to  and  finds  itself  in  the  other  ;  and 
the  bond  of  this  living  unity  is  love  (chap.  v.  28). 

We  can  now  admire  the  energy  and  force  of  logic 
with  which  Paul  has  guarded  his  Christian  theory 
from  the  approaches  of  the  Gnostic  dualism  that 
threatened  to  corrupt  Christianity,  alike  in  its  dog- 
matic principle  and  its  ethical  practice,  and  the  un- 
faltering consistency  with  which  he  has  carried  out 
his  belief  From  the  Pauline  theory  there  is  deduced 
a  morality  which  is  indeed  the  very  reverse  of  the 
Gnostic  ethics.  The  profound  connexion  which  exists 
between  the  hortatory  and  dogmatic  portions  of  the 
two  epistles  has  not  always  been  fully  apprehended. 
The  apostle  dwells  solely  on  the  natural  and  ordinary 
duties  of  man  :  those  of  marriage,  of  the  education 
of  children,  of  the  master  towards  his  slave,  of  the 
slave  towards  his  master,  and,  in  short,  on  social  and 
domestic  duties  in  general.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
vigorously  attacks  the  dualistic  morality  of  the  false 
teachers  of  Colossa;,  which  bordered  on  a  barren  asce- 
ticism. Nothing  was  more  important  from  the  first 
than  to  warn  the  Church  against  this  fatal  tendency, 
and  to  prevent  it  from  falling  into  this  well-worn 
groove.  It  is  within  the  circle  of  life's  ordinary  duties 
that  all  the  sanctifying  freedom  of  the  evangelical 
principle  should  be  exhibited.  Christian  morality 
does  not  create  or  impose  any  other  duties  than  those 


THE  ASIATIC  EPISTLES.  249 


arising  from  the  natural  relations  of  men  to  each  other; 
what  it  aims  at  and  labours  for,  is  to  transform  these 
relations,  to  purify  and  restore  them  to  their  ideal. 

Natural  duty  fulfilled  by  the  aid  of  Christ — that  is 
the  essence  of  religious  duty.  The  Church  is  not  to 
be  a  private  society;  it  is  human  society  regenerated 
by  the  spirit  of  the  Saviour,  a  new  liumanity.  Paul 
preaches  above  all  things  purity  of  heart,  of  conduct, 
and  of  speech.  He  sanctifies  marriage  by  presenting 
for  its  type  the  union  of  Christ  and  the  Church,  and 
education  by  placing  it  under  the  oversight  of  God. 
He  brings  down  the  master  to  the  level  of  the  slave 
by  charity  ;  he  raises  the  slave  to  the  level  of  the 
master  in  appealing  to  his  conscience.  In  a  word,  he 
opens  to  Christian  humanity  every  path  of  progress. 
"  For  the  rest,  my  brethren,"  he  writes  to  the  Philip- 
pians  shortly  after  these  two  letters,  "  let  everything 
that  is  true,  that  is  pure,  that  is  just,  that  is  sound, 
lovable,  and  of  good  report,  be  the  subject  of  your 
thoughts.  Make  every  kind  of  virtue  and  of  praise 
your  aim  "  (Phil.  iv.  8). 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   EPISTLE   TO   THE    PHILIPPIANS. 

PAUL'S  dogmatics  are  finally  resolv^ed  and  ab- 
sorbed into  a  lofty  Christology.  This  Christo- 
logy  in  its  turn  attains  its  last  and  crowning  expression 
in  the  famous  passage,  Philippians  ii.  6-i  i,  which  may 
be  regarded  as  the  keystone  of  the  apostle's  theo- 
logical edifice.  But  before  discussing  this  text,  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  make  some  reference  to  the 
epistle  in  which  it  is  found. 

This  last  letter,  written  from  the  Praitorium  at  Rome, 
closes  the  historical  life  of  Paul  as  related  in  the  Acts. 
If  the  apostle  had  expected  by  appealing  to  Caesar  to 
shorten  the  long  imprisonment  antecedent  to  his  trial, 
his  hope  had  been  bitterly  deceived.  There  was 
scarcely  any  more  notice  taken  of  him  at  Rome  than 
at  Caesarea.  He  had  patiently  to  resume  the  work 
of  his  apostleship,  and  to  carry  it  on  in  chains.  His 
earnest  words  won  many  souls  among  the  military 
population  of  the  Praetorium,  and  even  among  the 
members  of  Nero's  household.  But  at  the  same  time 
his  courage  and  example,  by  giving  a  fresh  impulse 
to  all  missionary  work,  occasioned  a  sharper  division, 
and  a  more  violent  contention  in  the  Church  between 
the  friends  of  his  gospel  and  the  Judaizing  party. 
The  old  Jewish  spirit,  conquered  in  Greece,  seemed 
to  find  in  the  genius  and  customs  of  the  Roman  race 

250 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  PHILIPPIANS. 


a  more  favourable  soil,  where  it  was  to  take  deep  root 
and  speedily  flourish  anew. 

Paul,  therefore,  had  to  pass  through  heavy  trials 
and  endure  painful  conflicts.  Many  Christians  who 
should  have  comforted  him  disowned  and  rejected 
him.  He  suffered  from  prolonged  isolation,  and  pos- 
sibly from  the  denunciations  of  his  brethren.  When, 
however,  he  wrote  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  there 
seemed  a  break  in  the  sky  that  had  so  long  been 
overcast.  Timothy  was  with  him,  Epaphroditus 
had  come  to  bring  him  the  precious  token  of  the  faith- 
ful affection  of  his  spiritual  children  in  Macedonia. 
He  foresees  at  length  a  speedy  issue  to  his  trial,  and 
awaits  it,  not  without  emotion,  but  in  perfect  resig- 
nation. Even  his  apprehensions  cannot  disturb  or 
restrain  the  joy  which  overflows  his  heart.  This  long 
and  wearisome  imprisonment — a  thing  so  fatal  to 
feeble  souls — had  as  little  power  to  vanquish  the  old 
hero  as  the  storms  and  struggles  of  his  public  life. 
He  shows  himself  at  this  critical  moment  as  indomi- 
table and  fervent  as  ever.  Hear  him  cry,  in  those 
triumphant  tones  which  he  can  always  command  in 
speaking  of  the  cause  of  Christ :  "  And  now,  happen 
what  may,  Christ  shall  always  be  glorified  in  my 
flesh,  whether  by  my  life,  or  my  death  1 "  (chap.  i.  20.) 

In  this  short  letter  we  must  not  look  for  any  dog- 
matic controversy  or  design.  Though  the  apostle 
occasionally  refers  to  the  Judaizing  agitation,  whether 
at  Rome  or  at  Philippi  (chaps,  i.  17  ;  iii.  2,  18),  it  is 
only  in  passing,  and  by  way  of  a  pastoral  warning. 
In  like  manner,  the  Christological  passage  (chap.  ii. 
6-1 1)  forms  an  integral  part  of  an  entirely  practical 
exhortation  to  self-renunciation  and  devotion.  Nei- 
ther of  these   points  therefore  can   be  regarded   as 


252  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


indicating  the  aim  of  the  epistle,  or  as  constituting 
its  direct  object.  We  must  abandon  the  attempt  to 
discover  a  purpose  in  the  letter,  or  else  simply  accept 
that  which  the  author  himself  reveals.  Paul  wishes 
to  thank  the  Philippians  for  their  generous  bounty,  to 
give  tidings  of  himself  and  hope  of  his  speedy  return 
(chap.  ii.  24).  This  is  just  an  intimate  and  familiar 
letter,  in  which  he  pours  out  with  delight  the 
fulness  of  his  heart  He  speaks  to  them  of  them- 
selves, and  of  himself;  and  these  two  subjects,  after 
alternating  throughout  the  epistle,  are  in  the  end 
blended  and  lost  in  each  other  (comp.  chaps,  i.  1-12 
and  i.  12-26  ;  i.  27  and  ii.  17-30;  chaps,  iii.  and  iv.). 
That  is  the  whole  plan  and  order  of  the  epistle. 
This  explains  the  abrupt  transitions  and  unexpected 
changes  of  tone,  which  have  led  some  critics  to  sup- 
pose that  we  have  here  two,  or  even  three,  of  Paul's 
letters  combined  in  one. 

They  forget  that  Paul  was  a  man,  and  an  apostle, 
before  he  was  a  theologian  ;  and  are  actually  surprised 
at  his  not  giving  to  this  familiar  letter  the  methodical 
order  of  a  treatise.  But  we  have  only  to  read  these 
few  pages  consecutively  to  apprehend,  in  the  absence 
of  the  logical  unity  for  which  we  have  no  right  to 
look,  their  profound  unity  of  inspiration  and  moral 
tendency.  The  logic  of  feeling  differs  from  that  of 
thought ;  it  is  perceived  by  the  heart.  Here  the 
sentiments  prompt  and  answer  to  each  other,  in  the 
most  natural  and  harmonious  manner.  These  pages 
were  written  from  a  single  inspiration.  We  may  add, 
that  they  do  not  so  much  exhibit  the  apostle's  theolo- 
gical creed,  as  the  feelings  of  his  heart  and  the  matu- 
rity of  his  religious  life.  There  is  here  a  wealth  of 
Christian  experience,  a  fulness  of  faith,  a  strength  and 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  PHILIPP/ANS.  253 

delicacy  of  affection,  which  remind  us  of  the  finest 
chapters  in  the  second  letter  to  the  Corinthians. 
There  is  the  same  overflowing  inner  life  ;  only,  pro- 
longed trial  and  meditation  have  deepened,  calmed, 
and  matured  it.  The  apostle  does  sometimes  speak 
with  his  former  severity  (chap.  iii.  2),  but  there  is  more 
gentleness  and  resignation  (chap.  iv.  18).  Equally 
prepared  either  to  live  or  die,  his  spirit  is  altogether 
less  passionate  and  more  tender,  less  susceptible  and 
more  detached  from  earth.  It  excites  us  less  ;  but  it 
touches  us  more.  A  subtle  note  of  melancholy  per- 
vades it.  Paul  is  already  crowned  with  the  martyr's 
halo,  and  with  the  reflection  of  immortality. 

Its  practical  character  notwithstanding,  the  epistle 
none  the  less  raises  us  to  those  lofty  and  luminous  sum- 
mits of  Christian  spirituality  to  which  the  apostle's 
doctrine  finally  attained,  and  whereon  it  rested.  This 
spirituality  is  especially  remarkable  in  its  eschato- 
logical  doctrine.  Paul  still  expects,  as  he  always 
had  done,  the  great  day  of  the  Lord  (ri/iipa  Xpiarov, 
chap.  i.  10).  The  resurrection  of  the  dead  still  seems 
to  him  the  final  goal  of  the  development  of  the  new- 
humanity  upon  the  earth  (chap.  iii.  11).  The  return  of 
Jesus,  coming  to  change  this  body  of  humiliation  into 
the  likeness  of  His  glorified  body,  continues  to  be  the 
object  of  his  hope.  But  there  is  no  longer  any 
feverishness,  or  impatience,  or  distress  in  this  glorious 
expectation.  It  is  with  an  absolutely  disinterested 
and  submissive  faith  that  Paul  contemplates  and 
traces  out  in  history  the  slow  yet  constant  unfold- 
ing of  the  Father's  will.  He  entirely  relinquishes 
the  attempt  to  question  a  future  whose  secret  is  with 
God.  Through  this  very  renunciation  he  rises  to  the 
serene  heights  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  the  thought  of 


254  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

the    inner    and    progressive    transformation    of    all 
humanity  under  the  continuous  organic  action  of  the 
Gospel  leaven.     Let  no  one  say  that  this  spiritualized 
expectation  of  the  consummation  of  the  Kingdom  is 
a  remainder  of  Jewish  superstition.     It  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  the   Christian  faith  ;    it  belonged  to   the 
faith  of  Jesus  ;    it  will  continue  to  be  that   of  the 
Church.     The  Gospel,  in  truth,  not  only  aims  at  the 
individual  salvation  of  the  soul  after  death ;  it  has  also, 
above  all  things,  a  social  and  universal  import,  and 
in  the  aim  of  its  Founder  had  this  from  the  first.     It 
entered  into  the  history  of  humanity  as  the  decisive 
factor  in  its  destinies.     If  human  history  is  a  drama, 
it   is    Christ   who   controls   it   and    brings   about  its 
denouement.     The  Day  of  Christ  will  be  its  consum- 
mation, which  will  consist  in  the  final  glorification  of 
His  Person  and  His  work.     Such  is  the  inevitable 
conclusion  of  the  Christian  philosophy  of  history.     If 
this  conception  of  the  destiny  of  the  human  race  is 
mistaken,  if  the  Gospel  of  Christ  does  not  contain 
the  last  word  of  all  our  debates,  it  is  plain  that  there 
is  no  salvation  in   Him.     If  Jesus  ceases  to  be  the 
Saviour   of    the   world.    He   also   ceases    to   be    the 
Saviour  of  the  individual. 

It  was  its  social  aim  that  constituted  the  strength 
and  greatness  of  Jewish  Messianism.  There  was  in 
this  an  element  of  profound  truth,  which  Paul,  following 
Jesus,  extracted  from  it  and  preserved.  The  philo- 
sophy of  history  derived  from  this  source,  and  which 
the  apostle  has  gradually  sketched  out  on  the  largest 
scale,  is  the  chief  glory  of  his  doctrine.  He  has 
shaken  off  everything  that  was  narrow,  national, 
materialistic,  or  vulgarly  supernatural  in  the  Jewish 
conception.     He  sets  aside  its  ingenious  calculations, 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  PRILIPPIANS.  255 

its  "signs  of  the  times,"  and  fantastic  visions.  He 
courageously  addresses  himself  to  the  practical  tasks 
of  everyday  life,  pointing  out  the  way  of  progress, 
and  walking  in  it  himself  without  either  discourage- 
ment or  impatience,  forgetting  what  has  been  already 
done  that  he  may  think  only  of  what  remains  to  be 
accomplished  {^v  Be,  ra  fiev  oTriaw  iviKavOavofievo^, 
ToU  Be  €/jL7rpoc6ev  e7r€KT€iv6/j,€Vo<;,  chap.  iii.  14). 

But  while  the  short-lived  hopes  of  the  popular 
Messianism  have  faded,  others  nobler  and  dearer  have 
dawned  on  the  Christian  consciousness. 

Paul  felt  himself  too  thoroughly  united  to  Christ 
ever  to  admit  the  thought  of  separation  from  Him. 
"  In  life,  and  in  death,"  he  had  written  in  the  epistle 
to  the  Romans,  "  we  are  the  Lord's  "  (idv  re  ^(Ofiev 
idv  re  dTroOv'jarKOjfiev,  rov  Kvpiov  ecr/j.ev) ;  and  else- 
where :  "  I  am  persuaded  that  neither  c/iat/i  nor  /i/e, 
nor  anything  else  can  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
God  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord"  (Rom.  xiv.  8  ;  viii.  38). 
For  a  long  time  Paul  had  now  lived  in  the  presence 
of  death  ;  and  in  death  itself  he  had  learned  to  find 
his  Saviour,  and  his  life.  Death  Jiad  been  sivallowed 
up  by  life.  This  spiritual  triumph  over  death,  which 
we  have  already  noticed  in  the  second  letter  to  the 
Corinthians,  we  find  consummated  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Philippians.  The  continuance  of  this  present 
existence,  or  its  cessation,  is  an  external  accident 
which  scarcely  affects  the  apostle ;  in  either  case  it 
leaves  his  communion  with  Christ  intact  and  un- 
interrupted. "  For  my  part,  to  live — that  is  Christ ; 
and  to  die  is  my  gain!"  Death  in  itself  .seems  to  him 
desirable  ;  for  his  faith  can  only  see  in  this  last  crisis 
a  renewal  of  his  being,  and  a  decided  advance  which 
brings  him  nearer  still  to  the  Lord  Jesus.    "  I  am  in  a 


2S6  •  r//£   APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Strait  between  two  things  ;  my  desire  is  to  remove  to 
be  with  Christ,  which  would  be  far  the  best  for  me." 
One  can  imagine  the  absolute  independence  that  this 
faith  gave  to  his  soul.  "  I  know  how  to  be  content 
with  what  I  have.  1  have  learned  how  to  be  in  want, 
and  in  abundance.  I  have  been  initiated  into  every 
condition.  I  know  how  to  endure  hunger,  and  enjoy 
plenty  ;  to  sustain  wealth,  and  rejoice  in  poverty.  I 
can  do  everything  through  Christ  who  strengthens 
me !"  (chap.  iv.  11-13.)  Paul  had  now  reached  the 
close  of  his  life  ;  and  the  fruit  of  his  faith  was  ripe. 

It  is  by  keeping  in  view  the  practical  character  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  and  its  entire  freedom 
from  dogmatic  pretension,  that  we  arrive  at  a  just 
appreciation  of  the  passage  in  chap.  ii.  6-11,  which 
now  remains  for  our  consideration.  Paul,  in  fact,  only 
refers  to  Jesus  in  this  place  in  order  to  exhibit  in  His 
conduct  the  ideal  type  that  the  Christian  should  strive 
to  imitate  and  reproduce.  It  is  the  law  of  moral 
development,  that  glory  is  won  through  the  cross. 
The  connexion  existing  between  sufferings  ^villingly 
accepted,  sacrifice  joyfully  fulfilled,  and  the  Divine  re- 
ward of  future  glory,  was  an  essential  and  inseparable 
element  of  Paul's  conception  of  the  Christian  life  in 
general  (2  Cor.  i.  5-7  ;  iv.  11-17  ;  Rom.  vi.  5  and  xiv. 
7).  The  Pauline  Christology,  in  becoming  transcen- 
dental, did  not  lose  the  ethical  character  belonging 
to  it  from  the  first.  The  cross  is  still  the  centre  of 
gravity  of  the  whole  structure.  We  are  not  confronted 
here  with  a  metaphysical  abstraction,  developed  by 
a  logical  and  m&\'\\.'d}o\Q  processus  \  but  with  a  moral 
Being,  who  rises  far  above  us  it  is  true,  but  who  never- 
theless stands  on  our  level,  and  who,  of  His  own  free 
will  fulfilled  His  destiny,  as  we  have  to  fulfil  ours. 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  PHIUPPIANS.  as;? 


It  is  only  from  this  essentially  ethical  point  of  view- 
that  we  can  grasp  Paul's  real  conception. 

After  this,  I  hardly  think  it  necessary  to  refute  the 
interpretation  of  the  text  which  Baur  has  given.  The 
author,  according  to  him,  might  have  copied  this 
admirable  story  of  Jesus  from  that  of  some  aeon  of 
Valentinian  Gnosticism — which,  in  aiming  to  make 
itself  equal  with  the  supreme  God,  lapsed  by  a 
deserved  fall  from  the  irXi^pwixa  into  a  lower  con- 
dition, that  of  the  Kevcofia,  and  finally  rose  by  degrees 
and  through  long  expiation  to  the  highest  place  ! 
These  two  conceptions  are  separated  by  a  whole 
abyss  ;  they  belong  to  two  different  worlds  which 
have  nothing  in  common  ;  and  I  seek  in  vaiq^for  the 
slightest  connection  between  them.  Baur  quotes  cer- 
tain expressions  in  the  passage  that  appear  to  favour 
Docetism.  But,  as  M.  Reuss  has  justly  observed,  the 
idea  of  Docetism  is  not  present  in  the  term  fioptfii], 
since  it  is  used  to  designate  the  Divine  essence;  nor 
in  ofiolcofia,  which  may  be  found  in  Romans  viii.  3 
(comp.  chap.  i.  23) ;  nor  in  the  words  cr;^'}/ia  and 
evpedeU,  which  always  indicate  an  objective  reality 
(comp.  I  Cor.  vii.  31  and  iv.  2  ;  2  Cor.  v.  3  ;  Gal.  ii. 
17),  Furthermore,  a  Docetic  interpretation  of  this 
passage  would  run  directly  counter  to  the  author's 
express  design.  How  could  he  found  the  glory  of 
Christ  upon  a  humiliation,  obedience,  and  death, 
which  were  only  apparent  ?  The  apostle  is  thinking, 
not  of  some  celestial  being,  but  of  the  historical 
Christ ;  and  it  is  His  earthly  life  that  he  so  admirably 
sums  up  in  the  idea  of  renunciation  and  obedience.^ 


'  See  do  Wette,  Exegctisches  Himdbttch,  second  edition,  on 
this  passage  in  Philippians. 

17 


2S8  >       THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


As  for  the  idea  of  KkvwaL<i  itself,  there  is  no  need  to 
look  for  it  in  the  Valentinian  Gnosticism.  Its  germ 
had  long  existed  in  the  apostle's  mind.  It  was  the 
conclusion  which  he  was  bound  inevitably  to  reach  ; 
and  it  enabled  him  to  reconcile  the  historical  stand- 
point from  which  he  vigorously  maintained  the 
essential  humanity  of  Jesus,  with  the  metaphysical 
standpoint  which  led  him  to  assert  His  Divine  origin 
and  condition.  This  passage  in  Philippians  is  the 
synthesis  of  the  Christology  of  the  great  epistles 
with  that  of  Colossians. 

It  was,  in  fact,  essential  to  the  logic  of  Paul's  doc- 
trine that  he  should  conceive  of  the  earthly  condition 
of  Jesu^  Christ  as  one  of  voluntary  humiliation,  and 
sum  up  His  whole  life  in  the  idea  of  sacrifice  (Gal.  iv. 
4 ;  Rom.  viii.  32).  The  words  of  2  Corinthians  viii. 
9  should  be  called  to  mind  :  hC  vfia<;  eTrrw^evaev, 
TrXovaio'i  wv.  The  exact  bearing  of  this  latter  pas- 
sage has  often  been  misunderstood.  The  word 
i'TrT(ji)')(jev(Tev  is  not,  indeed,  the  equivalent  of  eKevoaaev 
eavTov.  The  verb  irToyj^^evetv  rather  signifies  to  live 
in  poverty,  paupertatem  gerere  ;  but  the  aorist  most 
certainly  indicates  the  time  when  this  condition  be- 
gan, when  Christ  became  poor.^  The  impartial  com- 
mentator will  be  compelled  to  see  at  the  basis  of 
this  passage  the  idea  of  self-renunciation  and  relin- 
quishment, which  moreover  alone  gives  force  to  the 


^  Neuter  verbs  in  -euw,  -vw,  -ew,  etc.,  in  the  present  tense 
express  a  condition,  and  in  the  aorist  a  becoining^-i.e.  the  point 
at  which  the  condition  begins.  Thus  ^atrtAevo)  signifies  I  reign, 
and  e/iaa-LXeva-a  I  became  king;  ■ma~r€V(i>  signifies  I  believe^  and 
imaTevora  I  became  a  believer.  In  the  same  way,  c^T/o-cr,  in 
Rom.  xiv.  9,  signifies  He  became  alive.  See  Holsten,  Paulus 
unci  Peirits,  p.  437. 


THE  EPISTLE    TO   THE  PHlLlPriANS.  ii^ 


apostle's  reasoning  in  the  context.  Hence  this  pas- 
sage of  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians  is  simply  the 
natural  development  of  the  idea  indicated  in  the  earlier 
text. 

Having  thus  placed  the  text  in  its  true  light  and 
referred  it  to  its  real  historical  origin,  it  will  not  be 
difficult  to  expound  its  content.  The  subject  of  the 
whole  paragraph  is  the  historical  Christ,  rising  to 
glory  through  humiliation.  But  that  this  humiliation 
should  take  place,  that  there  indeed  should  be  room 
for  renunciation,  it  was  certainly  necessary  that  Christ 
should  have  been  already,  in  Himself  and  by  nature, 
of  a  higher  condition.  This  original  state  the  apostle 
indicates  in  the  words  eV  fiopc^fj  &eov  v-rrdp^tov,  which 
form  the  most  exalted  metaphysical  definition  ever 
given  by  Paul  to  the  Person  of  Christ.  They  express 
a  substantial  relation  to  God,  a  relation  that  the 
expressions  elxcov  Kal  Bo^a  tov  Oeov  (2  Cor.  iv.  6), 
which  are  sometimes  adduced  as  a  parallel,  do  not 
involve.  Paul  has  said  of  man  in  his  present  condi- 
tion that  he  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God  (i  Cor.  xi. 
7)  ;  he  would  never  have  said  of  us,  as  of  Christ,  eV 
fiopdifj  Geov  vTrdp-)(^ovTe<;.  But  on  the  other  hand, 
the  expression  fiop(f)r]  Oeov  does  not  mean  absolute 
Divinity  ;  there  is  still  beyond  it  that  which  Paul  calls 
equality  with  God,  clvai,  laa  Qew — a  higher  position 
which  Christ  might  have  thought  of  seizing,  but 
which  He  did  not  usurp.  Christ  is  of  the  Divine 
nature.  But  there  is  this  difference  between  Him  and 
God  :  that  which  He  will  be  in  the  end.  He  has  yet 
to  become  ;  and  He  becomes  this  actually,  by  the  full 
development  of  His  moral  being.  Thus  the  definitive 
condition  to  which  Christ  attains — and  which  Paul 
describes  in    the  tenth  verse — is  not  a  mere  return' 


26o  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


to  the  point  of  departure,  to  the  original  condition 
indicated  in  ver.  6.  Between  these  two  points  there 
is  for  Christ  Himself  a  progress,  a  real  development 
of  His  being.  On  the  other  hand,  Christ  is  no  more 
able  than  we  are  to  go  beyond  Himself,  to  exceed 
the  limits  of  His  nature.  His  development  only 
makes  manifest  what  was  inherent  in  Him  in  principle, 
and  the  goal,  which  is  the  Divine  state,  implies  for  a 
starting  point  a  Divine  nature  and  virtue.  These  two 
phases  of  development  are  related  to  each  other  very 
much  as  potentiality  is  to  action.  Christ  was  potentially 
from  the  first,  that  which  He  finally  became  in  actua- 
lity. Thus  the  child,  being  by  its  very  nature  kv 
fMop(f)T]  avdpoiTTov,  finally  attains  full  humanity.  The 
/xop(f>T]  0€ou,  therefore,  indicates  the  general  form  of 
Christ's  being  ;  but  is,  if  I  may  so  speak,  an  empty 
form  which  has  to  be  filled — that  is  to  say,  spiritually 
realized.  There  was  in  Him  the  capacity  to  receive 
and  contain  all  the  plenitude  of  the  Divine  life 
[7r\r}pwp.a  deoTrjro^;). 

This  development  of  the  Person  of  Christ  is  ac- 
complished through  a  series  of  different  periods  or 
stages,  which  the  apostle  specifies  and  analyses  in  the 
text.  The  first,  wholly  negative,  lies  in  the  fact  that 
He  did  not  seek  through  egotism  and  pride  to  place 
Himself  on  a  level  with  God,  to  usurp  prematurely 
the  Divine  equality  (ov^  upTrajfiov  i)y^<TaTO  ro  elvat 
taa  ©CftJ).  He  resisted  this  first  temptation  to  aggran- 
dise and  elevate  Himself  by  a  violent  self-assertion, 
— called  by  Paul  an  act  of  robbery.  Possibly  this 
phrase  alludes  to  Genesis  iii.  5  and  Matthew  iv.  3. 

The  second  stage — one  that  is,  on  the  contrary-, 
essentially  positive — is  denoted  by  the  words  eVevaxrei/ 
kaxrrov,  which  have  been  well  translated,  and  without 


THE  EPISTLE   TO   THE  PHILIPPIANS.  261 


exaggeration,  He  annihilated  Himself.  ,We  must  not 
here  conceive  of  the  Johannine  Logos  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  already  possessed  of  His  full  existence 
and  Divine  glory,  as  sacrificing  His  essence  and 
destroying  Himself  in  order  to  be  born  again  and  to 
attain  full  development.  There  is  something  incon- 
ceivable in  the  notion  of  a  being  who  should  transform 
and  metamorphose  himself  in  this  way  ;  it  lies  quite 
outside  that  sphere  of  moral  life  within  which  Paul 
always  confined  himself  The  pre-existence  of  nature 
that  he  attributes  to  Christ  is  within  the  God- 
head. Christ,  who  was  by  the  order  of  His  being 
{genere  essendi)  of  Divine  nature,  renounces  the  Divine 
form  of  His  essence,  and  annihilates  His  personal 
will  in  the  presence  of  the  Father's  will.  In  a  word, 
He  sacrifices  Himself  This  annihilation  is  not  a 
metaphysical  transitbstaniiation,  which  is  an  impossible 
conception  ;  it  is  a  moral  act,  analogous  to  that  which 
every  spiritual  being  is  called  upon  to  perform,  in 
order  that  he  may  become  truly  himself  and  fulfil  his 
destin}'.  The  words  iKevwaev  kavrov  are  explained 
by  the  three  participles  which  follow,  in  well-marked 
gradation  :  ixop(^i)v  BovXov  XayStuv — Christ  who  was  by 
nature  iv  fiopc^fj  Kvpiov,  took  upon  Him  the  fjLop(f>i]v 
BovXov,  that  He  might  develop  Himself  in  this  lower 
condition  ;  He  sacrificed  His  dignity,  He  became  like 
men  ;  and,  finally,  was  found  as  a  mere  man.  The 
two  remaining  clauses,  eV  ofiouo/iaTi  avdpdaiTwv  yevo- 
fjLeyo<;,  €up€de\<:  cui  avdpo)iro<i,  are  only  the  explanation, 
the  objective  realization  of  the  fiopcfii)  BovXov. 

The  third  stage,  rising  upon  and  above  the  other 
two,  is  the  obedience  {y€v6ixevo<i  vtttjkoos:) — an  obedience 
which  found  its  goal  and  consummation  in  the  death 
on  the  cross.     This  development  therefore  is  simply 


262  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


an  ever  deepening  humiliation.  But  this  humiliation 
is  at  the  same  time  an  exaltation ;  and  it  is  here  that 
the  great  law  of  the  moral  life  is  manifested.  In 
His  constant  self-renunciation  Christ  actualized  the 
virtualities  of  His  nature.  Every  sacrifice  left  Him 
ennobled  and  enriched.  Reaching  the  lowest  depth 
of  His  humiliation,  in  His  death  on  the  cross,  He 
attained  the  very  height  of  His  glory.  Thus  Jesus 
fulfilled  His  original  destiny,  and  arrived  at  last  at 
a  condition  of  complete  and  actual  Divine  royalty. 
"  Therefore,"  as  Paul  has  so  finely  said,  "  God  has 
supremely  exalted  Him,  and  given  Him  a  name 
above  every  name  :  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every 
knee  should  bend,  in  heaven,  upon  earth,  and  under 
the  earth  ;  and  that  ever)'  tongue  should  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 
This  is  the  final  summit  reached  by  Paul's  doctrine. 
It  had  but  to  take  one  step  more  to  attain  the  idea 
of  the  Ao'^o'i.  This  conception  cannot  have  been 
unknown  to  him.  If  he  has  never  applied  this  name 
to  his  Master,  it  was  certainly  from  a  fixed  deter- 
mination. Nor  must  we  be  surprised.  His  conception 
of  Christology  is  radically  different  from  that  of  the 
P'ourth  Gospel,  which  is  a  Christology  formed  from 
the  Divine  standpoint.  Hence,  as  it  appears  to  us, 
tJie  Word  made  flesh  of  St.  John  never  comes  to  be 
fully  and  simply  man.  Paul's  Christology,  on  the 
contrary,  was  framed  from  the  human  standpoint.  It 
has  an  anthropological  origin,  and  retains  something 
of  this  essentially  human  character  even  in  its  meta- 
physical form.  This  is  doubtless  the  reason  why  the 
Christ  of  Paul  never  comes  to  be  simply  and  abso- 
lutely God,  In  His  full  Godhead  He  still  retains  the 
features  of  His  glorified  humanity. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE   THREE   PASTORAL    EPISTLES. 

IT  now  only  remains  to  consider  the  three  Pastoral 
epistles.  It  is  somewhat  unfortunate  for  them, 
to  begin  with,  that  they  do  not  belong  to  the  organic 
whole  formed  by  Paul's  other  letters,  and  are  related 
to  it  less  as  an  integral  part  than  as  an  appendix, 
adding  nothing  of  essential  moment  to  the  results 
already  obtained. 

It  is  impossible,  in  fact,  to  speak  here  of  a  new 
advance  of  Paulinism.  True,  it  is  preisented  to  us 
in  a  different  phase  ;  but  instead  of  growing  richer, 
it  seems  impoverished.  With  the  epistle  to  the  Phi- 
lippians  the  living  progress  ceases  ;  with  the  Pastoral 
letters  the  conservative  tradition  begins.  Paul's 
doctrine  is  there  ;  but  the  soul  which  sustained  and 
vivified  it  appears  already  to  have  left  it.  The  power- 
ful assimilation  and  fruitful  activity  of  life  is  at  an 
end  ;  the  body,  still  recognisable,  seems  stiffened  and 
chilled  ;  the  dialectical  articulations  of  the  system  are 
no  longer  perceptible.  In  any  case,  we  have  reached 
a  point  of  arrest.  This  statement,  incontrovertible 
under  any  hypothesis,  is  not  intended  to  decide  the 
critical  problem  raised  by  the  origin  of  the  three 
letters.  They  present  a  series  of  enigmas  which,  in 
the  utter  absence  of  historical  information  about  the 


264  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


latter  period  of  the  apostle's  life,  will  long  remain 
insoluble. 

We  humbly  confess  that,  after  a  long,  critical  study 
of  the  subject,  we  remain  completely  undecided.^ 
The  defenders  of  the  epistles  do  indeed  succeed  in 
making  us  question  their  apocryphal  origin,  but  not 
in  convincing  us  of  their  authenticity.  Their  ad- 
versaries easily  throw  doubt  upon  the  authenticity  of 
these  writings,  but  without  enabling  us  to  understand 
their  later  origin.  We  do  not  wish  to  enter  upon  the 
discussion  here  ;  but  there  is  one  point  which  we  con- 
sider beyond  all  question  and  which  we  shall  proceed 
to  establish, — viz.  that  these  three  letters  are  posterior 
to  all  the  others,  and  cannot  be  included  in  the 
scheme  of  Paul's  life  given  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
If  they  are  authentic,  they  belong  to  a  later  period 
of  his  life,  of  which  we  are  w^holly  ignorant. 

Let  us  notice,  to  begin  with,  a  preliminary  fact  ot 
decisive  importance,  and  one  fully  established  by  the 
studies  of  de  Wette  and  Baur  ;  namely,  the  intimate 
connexion  of  the  three  epistles,  and  their  perfect 
resemblance  to  each  other.  This  resemblance  not 
only  obliges  us  to  admit  all  the  three  as  authentic 
or  to  reject  them  together  as  apocryphal,  but  abso- 
lutely prevents  our  ascribing  them  to  separate  periods 
of  Paul's  life.  The  style,  the  basis  of  thought,  the 
heresies  combated,  the  ecclesiastical  situation  pour- 
trayed,  the  practical  counsels  laid  down — in  a  word, 


'  During  the  last  twenty  years  we  have  more  than  once  taken 

up  this  very  obscure  problem.  We  must  confess  that  the 
reasons  against  the  authenticity  of  the  three  letters,  which 
perhaps  were  drawn  up  with  the  help  of  a  few  of  Paul's  notes, 
and  by  his  disciples,  seem  to  us  to  carry  the  day.  See  Eti- 
cydopMie  des  sciences  religieuses :  art.  '*  Pastorales."' 


THE   THREE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  265 

everything  about  the  letters  is  similar,  not  to  say 
identical.  In  some  instances,  we  arc  tempted  to  think, 
they  repeat  and  copy  each  other  (comp.  1  Tim.  iv.  i, 
7  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  23  ;  and  Tit.  iii.  9,  i.  14 :  i  Tim.  iii.  2,  and 
Tit.  i.  7  :  I  Tim.  iv.  i  fif.,  and  2  Tim.  iii.  i  :  i  Tim. 
ii.  7,  and  2  Tim.  i.  11).  Finally,  besides  this  mutual 
resemblance,  we  must  further  note  that  they  are  all 
distinguished  from  the  other  epistles  by  their  common 
cast  of  doctrine ;  and  in  these  essential  differences 
they  share  alike. 

This  incontestable  and  uncontested  fact  at  once 
condemns,  beyond  appeal,  any  hypothesis  dating  the 
letters  in  question  at  intervals  of  four  or  five  years 
from  each  other,  or  which  puts  any  one  of  Paul's  other 
epistles  between  them.  There  is,  in  fact,  only  one 
supposition  which  adequately  explains  their  funda- 
mental resemblance — vie.  that  they  were  written 
within  a  very  short  space  of  time,  and  a  long  while 
after  all  the  rest,  at  a  period  when  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  apostle  had  changed,  and  when 
perhaps  the  burden  of  age  and  his  prolonged  trials 
had  left  their  traces  on  his  genius.  The  Pastoral 
epistles  certainly  seem  to  betray,  here  and  there,  a 
sort  of  weariness  and  enfeeblement. 

Of  all  the  attempts  made  to  find  a  likely  place  for 
these  epistles  in  the  historical  framework  of  Paul's 
life,  the  most  ingenious  is  unquestionably  the  hypo- 
thesis of  M.  Reuss.*  This  theologian  assuming  that 
the  apostle,  during  his  three  years'  sojourn  at  Ephesus, 
made  a  circular  tour  to  Crete,  Corinth,  Macedonia, 
and  Epirus,  formed  for  the  epistle  to  Titus  and  the 

'  History  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  Xe7u  Testament, 
§§  ^7-92-     He  has  since  abandoned  this  hypothesis. 


266  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

first  to  Timothy  a  ring  fairl}-  natural  and  sufficient 
to  link  them  with  this  period  of  Paul's  life.  The 
second  epistle  to  Timothy  might  have  been  written 
later,  at  Rome,  before  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians. 
Thus  two  of  the  Pastoral  epistles  would  be  placed 
between  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  and  the  first 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  But  such  an  idea  is 
wholly  inadmissible,  and  to  our  thinking  incompre- 
hensible. How,  we  repeat  with  M.  Renan,  could  Paul 
have  penned  these  mild  effusions  just  after  the  epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  and  on  the  eve  of  writing  those  to 
the  Corinthians  ?  He  must  have  abandoned  his  usual 
style  on  leaving  Ephesus,  and  resumed  it  upon  his 
return,  except  when  he  reverted  a  few  years  later  to 
the  diction  employed  during  this  supposed  journey, 
in  writing  to  Timothy  a  second  time.^  An  interval  of 
at  least  four  years  would  separate  this  second  letter 
to  Timothy  from  the  other  two  ;  and  what  is  a  still 
greater  difficulty  than  the  number  of  years,  is  that 
during  this  interval  the  apostle  must  have  written  the 
epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  the  Colossians,  and  Phile- 
mon. Will  any  one  suppose  that  Paul  in  writing  to 
a  friend,  after  this  space  of  time,  can  have  made 
extracts  for  the  purpose  from  some  of  his  old  letters  ? 
The  thing  is  inconceivable. 

Besides,  this  literary  difficulty  is  by  no  means  the 
most  serious  one.  The  character  of  the  heresies  con- 
troverted, and  the  ecclesiastical  situation  these  letters 
present,  constitute  others  which  are  in  themselves 
decisive.  We  might  further  discuss  the  sort  of 
heretics  to  whom  the  Pastoral  epistles  refer.  But  it 
is  absolutely  certain  that  they  are  not  the  Judaizing 


Renan  :  Saint  Paul.,  Introd.,  p.  31. 


THE   THREE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  267 


teachers  of  Galatia  and  Coririth,  and  do  not  in  any 
wise  resemble  them  It  would  be  more  easy  to  find  a 
connecting  link  between  them  and  the  false  teachers 
of  Colossa.'.  There  is  the  same  arbitrary  asceticism, 
resting  on  a  similar  dualism  of  principles  (i  Tim. 
iv.  1-5),  and  accompanied  by  fantastic  speculations, 
as  senseless  as  they  were  useless.  Their  dualistic 
doctrines,  however,  belong  to  a  far  more  highly 
developed  and  more  dangerous  form  of  Gnosticism 
than  that  to  which  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians  and 
Colossians  refer.  In  these  latter  we  find  no  more 
than  a  tendency  to  these  notions  :  here,  they  have 
already  taken  shape  and  are  distinctly  formulated  ; 
they  are  sharpl}'  distinguished  from  the  evangelical 
teaching,  and  openly  oppose  themselves  to  it. 

Any  one  who  still  wishes  to  separate  the  three 
letters  by  placing  an  interval  of  four  or  five  years 
between  them,  is  logically  compelled  to  admit  that 
these  heresies  existed  before  the  composition  of  the 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and  were  even  at  that 
period  threatening  the  Church's  exi.stence.  But  is  it 
conceivable  that  such  a  danger  had  arisen  at  Ephesus 
at  the  time  when  Paul  had  stayed  but  a  year  in  this 
city,  and  when  the  Christian  community  was  only 
beginning  to  establish  itself?  If  the  danger  did  exist, 
why  do  we  find  no  indication  of  it  in  the  two  epistles 
to  the  Corinthians,  or  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans? 
Besides,  if  two  of  the  Pastorals  are  contemporary  with 
Galatians  and  Corinthians,  how  is  it  that  they  bear 
no  trace  of  the  strenuous  conflict  with  the  Judaizers, 
which  at  this  time  most  certainly  engrossed  the 
apostle's  thought  and  life?  The  epistles  must  of 
necessity  be  subsequent  to  the  address  at  Miletus. 
To  place  them  earlier  is  an  utter  moral  impossibility. 


26S  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


In  one  particular  this  impossibility  becomes,  in- 
deed, matter  of  positive  fact :  I  refer  to  the  heresy  of 
Hymenaius,  Alexander,  and  Philetus,  against  which 
the  epistles  to  Timothy  are  both  directed  (i  Tim.  i. 
20;  comp.  2  Tim.  ii.  17).  It  is  sufficient  to  compare 
these  two  passages  to  feel  certain  that  the  letters 
could  not  have  been  separated  by  a  long  interval. 
One  might  even  think  that  the  passage  in  the  second 
letter  was  written  before  that  in  the  first.  Hymenaius, 
who  in  the  latter  is  excommunicated,  does  not  seem 
to  be  so  as  yet  at  the  date  of  the  other  epistle. 

The  general  ecclesiastical  situation  implied  in  the 
three  letters  can  only  have  occurred  somewhat  later. 
One  year  after  Paul's  first  preaching  at  Ephesus,  we 
cannot  understand  the  possibility  either  of  the  de- 
velopment that  these  heresies  had  already  assumed,  or 
of  the  moral  disorders  that  the  apostle  points  out ;  or 
his  counsels  respecting  widows,  bishops,  and  deacons  ; 
or,  in  short,  the  ecclesiastical  code  that  we  find  in 
these  epistles.  Let  any  one  who  wishes  to  realize  the 
difference  in  the  condition  of  the  times,  compare  the 
picture  draw^n  of  Church  life  in  the  Corinthian  com- 
munity (i  Cor.  xii.-xiv.)  with  the  situation  apparent 
in  the  Pastoral  letters.  The  period  of  tumultuous 
spontaneity  has  been  succeeded  by  that  of  prudent 
and  orderly  administration. 

Without  pausing  to  discuss  more  fully  the  indi- 
vidual details  of  this  hypothesis,  details  which  raise 
many  other  difficulties  of  a  geographical  and  historical 
nature,^  let  us  boldly  conclude  that  the  three  epistles 


'  I  Tim.  i.  3,  in  particular,  is  a  stumbling  block  to  any  hypo- 
thesis which  intercalates  the  letter  to  Titus  and  the  first  to 
Timothy  in  Paul's  supposed  circular  tour. 


THE   THREE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  269 


in  question  belong  to  one  period  of  Paul's  life  and 
constitute  a  cycle  of  their  own,  of  later  date  in  the 
history  of  his  doctrine.  Either  Paul's  career  did  not 
end  at  the  point  where  the  Acts  leaves  off,  or  else 
the  Pastoral  letters  are  not  authentic.  Such  is  the 
dilemma  in  which  we  are  landed ;  and  I  do  not 
think  there  is  any  possibility  of  escape  from  it.  This 
dilemma,  unfortunately,  at  the  same  time  creates  a 
circle  within  which  the  action  of  criticism  is  confined. 
Historical  information  of  any  certainty  on  the  latter 
period  of  Paul's  life  is  entirely  wanting.  While  the 
epistles  require  this  unknown  period,  and  a  second 
captivity,  as  a  basis  for  their  apostolic  origin, — on  the 
other  hand,  the  hypothesis  of  a  second  captivity 
scarcely  finds  any  real  foundation  except  in  the  three 
Pastoral  letters. 

It  is  enough  for  our  purpose  to  have  proved  that 
the  three  epistles  actually  represent  the  latest  stage 
of  Paulinism.  We  may  leave  undecided  the  question 
whether  this  last  transformation  took  place  in  the 
apostle's  lifetime,  or  only  after  his  death.  In  what- 
ever way  it  is  settled,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
letters  belong  to  the  history  of  the  Pauline  system. 
They  are  not  unworthy  of  the  great  apostle,  either 
in  form  or  substance.'  The  idea  of  the  evangelical 
ministry  which  they  unfold  is  unmistakably  his.  We 
meet  here  and  there  with  the  profound  mysticism  of 
his  former  letters  (2  Tim.  i.  9,  10;  ii.  9-1 1).  The  con- 
troversial argumentations  of  Galatians  and  Romans 
have  disappeared  ;  but  the  doctrine  that  underlies 
those  epistles  is  expressed  in  all  its  energy  and  pro- 


'  See   the  excellent  defence  of  ihem  made  by  M.  Reuss, 
History  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  N.  7'.,  ^§  88-92. 


270.  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 


fundity  (Tit.  iii.  5-7).  It  is  justifiable  therefore,  and 
even  necessary,  before  concluding,  to  pourtray  the  dog- 
matic character  of  these  three  letters. 

A  very  serious  difficulty,  under  the  hypothesis  of 
their  unauthenticity,  is  to  determine  the  dogmatic 
design  and  end  that  the  author  had  in  view  when 
inventing  them.  What  strikes  us  most  of  all  in  these 
letters  is  their  practical  bearing.  It  is  easy  enough, 
from  this  point  of  view,  to  connect  them  with  Paul's 
other  epistles,  and  to  explain  their  special  physiog- 
nomy. The  epistle  to  the  Philippians  proves  the 
practical  turn  that  Paul's  doctrine  took  in  the  latter 
years  of  his  life,  and  the  simplification,  and  condensation 
thus  effected  in  his  ideas.  The  dialectic  apparatus 
which  had  served  to  formulate  and  defend  them  was 
gradually  disappearing,  and  the  results  obtained  were 
summed  up  in  short  and  simple  affirmations. 

Also  the  conservative  character  of  the  epistles  may" 
very  well  be  connected  with  a  traditional  element 
which  is  not  wanting  in  any  of  the  earlier  letters, 
and  which  at  all  times  was  an  essential  feature  of  the. 
apostle's  teaching  (i  Cor.  xv.  i-ii  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  15  j 
Eph.  iv.  3  ;  Phil.  iii.  i  ;  Col.  ii.  6 ;  Rom.  xvi.  17).  We 
must  never  weary  of  repeating,  because  it  is  con- 
tinually forgotten,  that  Paul  was  an  apostle  before  he 
was  a  theologian.  To  him  the  need  of  conservation 
was  more  urgent  than  that  of  innovation.  His  gospel 
was,  above  everything  else,  a  message  that  he  had 
received,  and  that  he  had  to  deliver  and  defend.  He 
preaches  not  only  with  authority,  but  by  authority  \ 
and  the  greatest  misfortune  which  can  befall  those 
who  have  received  his  message  is  to  betray  the  trust, 
or  to  allow  it  to  be  perverted  (Gal.  i.  6-9). 

In    this  way  the   character  of  these   epistles  can 


THE   THREE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  271 


easily  be  understood.  They  arc  summed  up  in  one 
thought:  Guard  the  good  deposit  {2  lixm.x.  \^).  This 
good  deposit,  which  must  not  be  allowed  to  be  lost 
or  corrupted,  naturally  becomes,  in  contrast  with  the 
errors  of  all  kinds  arising  in  the  Churches,  the  right 
luaj,  the  sound  doctrine  (Xoyo'i  iryirj^,  vyiaivovTe<i 
X6701).  With  this  idea  o(  orthodoxy  arose  of  necessity 
the  correlative  conception  of  Jieresy.  Beside  this  per- 
severance in  the  received  faith,  the  author  dwells  no 
less  forcibly  upon  the  necessity  of  purity  of  life,  and 
launches  out  into  most  vigorous  practical  exhortations. 
But  this  is  not  done  without  involving  some  degree  of 
separation  between  dogma  and  practical  life,  a  separa- 
tion which  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  earlier  epistles. 
Here  Christianity  evidently  tends  to  resolve  itself 
into  a  doctrine,  and  a  morality.  The  organic  bond 
between  faith  and  life,  which  in  Paul's  great  letters 
was  so  close,  is  loosened,  if  not  already  broken.  In 
that  consists  the  real  inferiority  of  these  later  epistles. 
The  author,  whoever  he  may  be,  does  not  limit 
himself  to  abstract  exhortations  to  maintain  faithfully 
the  received  tradition.  He  carefully  indicates  how 
this  deposit  can  and  ought  to  be  preserved,  entrusted 
as  it  was  to  the  Church  at  large,  which  lives  by  it  and 
is  responsible  for  it.  The  Church  is  "  the  pillar  and 
stay  of  the  truth"  (i  Tim.  iii.  15).  But  that  is  not 
enough  ;  it  is  necessary  to  commit  this  charge  into 
individual  hands.  As  Paul  himself  delivered  the  good 
deposit  to  his  disciples,  they  in  their  turn  must  con- 
fide it  to  sure  hands.  Hence  the  repeated  directions 
about  the  choice  of  bishops,  deacons,  and  of  elders  in 
general, — directions  which  occupy  so  much  space  in 
the  letters,  and  are  thus  connected  directly  with  their 
general  and  leading  idea. 


272  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


By  all  the  features  we  have  described — the  sepa- 
ration of  dogma  and  morality,  the  conception  of  the 
Church,  of  tradition  and  apostolical  succession — these 
epistles  furnish  the  transition  from  Paulinism  to  the 
Catholicism  of  the  second  century,  which  was  in  fact 
a  synthesis  of  the  various  tendencies  of  the  apostolic 
age. — The  creative  epoch  has  come  to  an  end. 

The  close  of  the  apostle's  life  is  involved  in  im- 
penetrable obscurity.  The  practical  welfare  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  which  had  been  his  first  care,  was 
doubtless  also  his  last  thought.  It  was  not  his 
anxiety  so  much  to  complete  and  crown  his  system 
worthily,  as  to  finish  before  his  death  the  work  that 
the  Master  had  given  him  to  do.  This  great  work 
is  now  accomplished.  The  heroic  combatant  may 
at  last  enjoy  the  repose  that  in  his  lifetime  neither 
his  will,  nor  conscience,  nor  intellect  ever  knew. 

Paul  was  only  a  disciple.  This,  from  first  to  last, 
was  his  role  and  his  ambition.  But  his  life  certainly 
presents  to  our  eyes  the  most  heroic  effort  humanity 
has  made  to  apprehend  and  appropriate  the  Divine 
teaching  and  life  of  the  Master.  Among  all  His 
disciples,  Jesus  has  had  no  greater. 


BOOK    V. 

ORGANIC   FORM  OF  PAUL'S   THEOLOGICAL 
S  y STEAL 

WK  liavc  followed  the  progressive  course  ot 
I'aul's  doctrine  throughout  his  epistles.  We 
have  left  it,  in  some  sort,  to  disclose  itself  in  its  suc- 
ceeding manifestations.  It  now  remains  for  us  to 
apprehend  and  set  it  forth  as  an  organic  whole.  We 
wish  to  trace  out  the  strong  and  delicate  articulation 
of  the  structure  that  wc  have  watched  as  it  rose 
slowly  upon  our  view. 

Ancient  theology  never  seems  to  have  suspected 
that  the  apostle's  doctrine  had  an  organism  of  its 
own,  which  ought  to  be  valued  as  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  its  truth.  The  epistles  served  it  simply  as 
a  collection  of  dicta  probautia.  The  general  scheme 
of  dogma  being  officially  prescribed,  it  only  remained 
to  distribute  these  passages  according  to  the  tradi- 
tional rubrics  :  Theology,  Christology,  Pneumatolog}-. 
Anthropology,  etc.  Did  the  dogmatic  teachers  arrive 
at  the  Pauline  theology  by  this  violent  procedure? 
Certainly  not.  They  had  cut  it  to  pieces.  Nothing 
was  left  of  it  but  scattered  and  lifeless  fragments — 
membra  disjecta. 

Usteri,  whose  labours  we  have  ahead)-  noticed, 
2-3  1 8 


274  7-^^  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


was  the  first  to  perceive  that,  in  order  to  have  Paul's 
doctrine  in  its  life  and  entirety,  we  must  apprehend 
and  unfold  it  in  its  own  organic  character,  and  make 
its  inner  cohesion  and  logical  unity  apparent.  He 
therefore  devoted  all  his  efforts  to  reconstructing  the 
Pauline  system  ;  and  his  work  is  an  early  and  note- 
worthy attempt  at  a  sound  historical  interpretation. 
Usteri  indeed  was  not  sufficiently  independent  of  the 
prevailing  ideas  of  his  time  ;  he  viewed  Paul's  system 
too  much  through  that  of  Schleiermacher.  Never- 
theless his  attempt  opened  up  a  new  path,  and  led 
men's  minds  to  a  truer  understanding  of  this  great 
system  of  doctrine.  He  divided  the  Pauline  system 
into  two  parts,  corresponding  with  two  historical 
periods :  the  epoch  previous  to  Christianity  (^poioL 
T?)?  dyvoLa<i),  and  the  epoch  of  Christianity  itself 
(irXijpco/ia  Twv  -xpovcov).  The  first  period  embraces 
the  development  of  Paganism  and  Judaism,  both 
being  comprehended  under  the  dogmatic  conception 
of  shi.  The  reign  of  sin  and  death  over  humanity, 
the  relation  between  sin  and  the  law,  the  power- 
Icssness  of  the  latter  to  justify  man,  and  the  ardent 
longing  for  redemption  that  was  the  outcome  of 
this  long  preparatory  period, — these  are  the  topics 
naturally  included  within  it. 

In  the  second  part,  Usteri  penetrates  to  the  heart 
of  the  Pauline  theology.  He  studies  in  succession 
the  work  of  redemption  in  the  individual  ;  the  develop- 
ment of  this  work  in  the  Christian  society,  or  Church  ; 
and,  lastly,  its  consummation  in  the  final  realization 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth. 

We  cannot  but  recognise  the  inherent  sequence  of 
this  exposition.  But  it  is  also  very  easy  to  indicate 
its  serious  defect.     The  theor>'  of  man's  justification, 


ORGANIC  FORM  OF  THEOLOGICAL  SYSTEM     275 

with  its  negative  and  positive  aspect  and  its  essential 
antithesis  between  the  law  and  faith,  is  maimed  and 
disjointed  ;  in  order  to  reconstruct  it,  its  scattered 
elements  have  to  be  sought  in  all  directions.  Thus 
Paul's  closely  woven  system  is  torn  asunder ;  and 
the  rent  proceeds  from  its  very  centre,  with  a  most 
disastrous  effect  on  the  entire  construction.  The  ex- 
position of  the  Pauline  theology  has  become  that  of 
the  historical  scheme  of  Divine  revelation.  No  doubt 
this  idea  supplied  an  essential  factor  in  the  apostle's 
conception  ;  but  it  is  not  the  only  one,  nor  the  most 
important.  Paul  did  not  conceive  this  idea  of  the 
historical  scheme  of  redemption  a  priori^  and  from 
the  outset.  He  only  arrived  at  it,  as  we  have  seen, 
by  a  long  and  laborious  progress.  The  anthropo- 
logical evidently  preceded  the  historical  point  of  view. 
Justification  by  faith  without  the  law  is,  both  in 
experience  and  theory,  the  logical  antecedent  of  the 
other  question.  It  was  from  this  subjective  side  that 
Paul's  doctrine  received  its  first  impulse  ;  and  with 
that  we  must  of  necessity  begin.  Now  this  individual 
point  of  view,  this  anthropological  factor,  is  com- 
pletely sacrificed  in  Usteri's  scheme.  Hence  it  has 
no  substantial  basis  ;  and  though  it  may  have  fas- 
cinated one's  mind  for  a  time,  it  has  not  secured 
final  acceptance. 

Next  to  this  work  of  Usteri,  the  most  remarkable 
exposition  of  Paulinism  is  undeniably  that  of  Baur.^ 

•  We  refer  now  to  the  exposition  of  Paul's  doctrine  contained 
in  the  Paulus  of  Baur.  We  still  prefer  it,  notwithstanding  its 
omissions,  to  that  which  the  learned  Professor  afterwards  gave 
in  his  NeuiesiameniUche  Theolo^ie,  published  in  1864,  after  tlie 
death  of  the  author. 


276  THE  APOSTLE   PAUL. 


It  shows  a  decided  advance  upon  the  former.  It  is 
open  to  correction,  and  completion  in  its  details  ;  but 
it  lays  down  the  true  method  of  reconstruction, 
and  fixes  the  right  point  of  departure.  Baur  was 
very  sensible  of  the  radical  defect  of  Usteri's  expo- 
sition, and  fully  succeeded  in  rectifying  it.  He  has 
thoroughly  apprehended  and  demonstrated  the  psy- 
chological origin  of  Paulinism.  He  bases  his  recon- 
struction on  the  great  idea  of  justification  by  faith, 
preserving  its  characteristic  antithetical  form  and 
dialectic  movement.  He  then  proceeds  to  trace  the 
development  of  this  idea  in  social  life  and  the  sphere 
of  history,  and  shows  how  from  these  premises  was 
logically  deduced  that  great  philosophy  of  history 
which  defined  the  relation  of  Judaism  and  Paganism 
respectively  to  the  Gospel.  At  this  point  Baur 
stopped  short.  The  critical  deductions  from  which  he 
set  out  scarcely  admitted  of  his  further  advance.  We 
may  however,  and  indeed  we  must,  charge  him  with 
having  misconceived  and  slighted  the  metaphysical 
principles  of  Paulinism.  He  has  briefly  touched 
upon  them  in  a  short  chapter  entitled  "  Secondary 
Questions"  {N ebeufrageii).  But  is  it  permissible  to 
call  the  Pauline  conceptions  of  God.  of  the  Person 
of  Christ,  of  predestination  and  revelation,  secondary 
questions?  Are  they  not,  on  the  contrary,  so  many 
essential  keystones,  that  preserve  the  harmony  and 
solidity  of  the  entire  structure  ?  While  Usteri's  ex- 
position appeared  to  want  foundation,  this  of  Baur 
may  be  said  to  want  its  topstone. 

The  exposition  presented  by  M.  Reuss,  in  his  turn, 
is  the  most  scrupulous  and  exact  in  detail  that  has 
ever  been  given.  But  on  the  special  point  which 
we  arc  now  considering,  viz,  the  logical  structure  of 


ORGANIC  FORM  OF  THEOLOGICAL  SYSTEM.    277 

the  system,  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  show  any  real 
advance  on  the  preceding  theories.  M.  Reuss  has 
correctly  indicated  the  general  character  of  Paul's 
theology  ;  he  has  pointed  out  its  primary  origin  in 
the  apostle's  moral  and  religious  experience  ;  and  he 
has  even  sketched  its  main  outlines  with  precision 
and  certainty.  But  the  psychological  and  historical 
aspects  of  the  subject  run  into  each  other,  and  are  so 
blended  together  that  neither  of  them  is  brought  out 
with  sufficient  emphasis  nor  developed  with  logical 
completeness.  The  rich  philosophy  of  history,  so 
powerfully  wrought  out  in  Paul's  mind,  fades  and 
disappears.  Neither  is  the  order  of  the  individual 
doctrines  as  they  pass  under  review,  nor  their  con- 
nexion with  the  generative  idea  of  the  system,  always 
thoroughly  apprehended.  In  short,  in  this  very  lucid 
and  facile  exposition  of  Paul's  doctrine  there  is  more 
art  than  logic. 

Obviously,  it  is  no  easy  undertaking  to  attempt  to 
reproduce,  without  distortion  or  injury,  the  internal 
organization  of  the  apostle's  system  of  thought.  We 
should  even  draw  back  from  the  task,  were  retreat 
permissible.  But  it  is  too  late.  From  the  historical 
exposition  that  we  have  just  given  is  logically  and 
spontaneously  evolved  an  organic  system  which  it 
behoves  us  to  expound.  We  have  not  created  it 
a  priori ;  history  itself  has  given  it  us,  and  in  the 
name  of  history  alone  we  finally  proceed  to  set  it 
forth.  Our  sketch  of  the  Pauline  system  will,  in  effect, 
furnish  a  brief  summary  of  the  history  whose  course 
we  have  followed  up  to  this  point. 

Paul's  theology  has  its  roots  in  the  fact  of  his  con- 
version. Each  of  his  ideas  may  be  said  to  have  been 
a  fact  of  inward  experience,  a  feeling,  before  it  was 


278  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

formulated  by  the  understanding.  Wc  must  not  be 
misled  by  its  external  dress,  by  the  scholastic  forms 
which  moulded  the  apostle's  doctrine ;  for  at  the 
bottom  there  was  nothing  at  all  abstract  or  formal 
about  it.  Deduction  is  not  its  favourite  process.  On 
the  contrary,  it  always  advances  from  the  concrete 
to  the  abstract,  and  rises  from  experience  to  prin- 
ciples. Paul's  is  not  a  speculative  theology,  logically 
deduced  from  an  abstract  conception  ;  it  is  un- 
mistakably positive,  having  its  starting  point  in  the 
internal  reality  of  faith.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
find  anything  more  vigorous  and  active  in  grov,'th 
than  Paul's  doctrine.  It  is,  when  properly  understood, 
simply  the  direct  transcription  of  his  experience, 
the  pure  outflow  of  his  moral  and  religious  life, 
which  ascending  from  the  depths  of  his  soul  into  the 
sphere  of  the  intellect,  there  finally  expands  into  its 
theoretical  form.  That  is  why  pious  souls  have  read 
and  ever  will  read  with  profit  these  letters,  apparently 
so  difficult.  Behind  their  scholastic  apparatus,  the 
consciousness  of  the  humble  Christian  perceives  and 
responds  to  that  of  the  great  apostle.  A  corre- 
sponding inward  experience  establishes  between 
them  by  anticipation  a  mysterious  harmony,  a  secret 
understanding  ;  and  it  very  often  happens  that  these 
simple  souls  comprehend  the  mind  of  Paul  better 
than  professed  scholars.  He  who  has  never  in  any 
degree  experienced  the  inward  change  which  trans- 
formed Saul  of  Tarsus  will  never  fully  understand 
his  writings  ;  there  is  a  hidden  depth  in  them  to 
which  he  cannot  penetrate. 

Paul's  theology  being  of  this  character,  it  is  no 
wonder  that  it  was  not  at  once  completed.  His 
doctrine  always  followed  the  course  of  his  religious 


ORGANIC  FORM  OF  THEOLOGICAL  SYSTEM.     279 


experience  ;  and  never  once  outran  it.  Originated  in 
the  sphere  of  personal  Hfe,  it  advanced  by  a  process 
of  gcncraUzation  to  the  spheres  of  social  life  and 
history ;  until,  striving  continually  after  unity  and 
ultimate  principles,  it  finally  attained  its  full  expan- 
sion in  the  sphere  of  metaphysics.  It  is  through  this 
upward  progress  and  constant  enlargement  that  we 
must  comprehend  it.  We  shall  thus  follow  the  actual 
course  that  its  history  has  marked  out  for  us. 

The  three  different  zones  traversed  by  Paul's 
thought,  correspond  in  fact  to  the  three  great  periods 
of  his  life.  The  first  was  that  of  personal  faith  and 
confession  ;  here  the  subjective  aspect  predominated 
in  his  theology.  The  conflicts  of  the  second  stage 
compelled  the  apostle  to  bring  himself  into  harmony 
with  the  past,  and  thus  led  him  to  the  historical 
standpoint  which  prevails  in  the  major  epistles.  Paul 
now  came  to  survey  the  whole  destiny  of  humanity, 
from  the  first  to  the  second  Adam,  and  from  Christ 
to  the  end  of  time.  Finally,  in  his  later  letters,  his 
mind  passes  the  bounds  which  separate  history  from 
metaphysics  ;  he  endeavours  to  find  in  God  Himself 
the  first  and  final  cause,  the  beginning  and  the  end 
of  the  great  drama  enacted  through  the  course  of 
time. 

We  must  not  make  a  forced  separation  between 
these  three  parts  of  Paul's  system,  and  the  three 
periods  of  his  life.  Their  logical  connexion  is  very 
close.  The  apostle's  historical  views  arise  from  his 
anthropology,  his  speculative  ideas  from  his  scheme 
of  history ;  and  all  these  developments  were  alike 
contained  in  his  early  faith,  ju.st  as  the  plant  lies  hid 
in  the  germ  which  produces  it. 

Involved  at  the  outset  in  the  violent  antithesis  of 


2So  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


the  law  and  faith,  Paul's  doctrine  in  its  development 
instinctively  tended  to  rise  above  it.  In  the  end  it 
succeeded.  It  is  in  the  psychological  sphere,  in  fact, 
that  we  find  the  fundamental  opposition  between 
works  and  grace,  flesh  and  spirit,  bondage  and  liberty, 
most  strongly  marked.  In  the  sphere  of  social  life 
and  history,  the  antithesis  assumes  a  wider  and  dif- 
ferent character  ;  it  reappears  in  the  contrast  between 
the  old  and  new  Covenants,  between  Adam  and 
Christ,  between  the  period  of  tutelage  and  of  in- 
dependence. But  as  early  as  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  this  opposition  has  diminished  ;  Judaism 
and  Paganism  become  subordinate  to  the  Gospel  ; 
and  the  antithesis  gives  way  to  the  higher  conception 
of  an  evolution  in  the  Divine  plan.  Finally,  in  the 
sphere  of  metaphysics,  all  dualism  terminates.  In 
the  supreme  conception  of  God,  all  contradictions  are 
reconciled  and  all  differences  disappear.  The  final 
word  of  the  Pauline  theology  is  this:  God  is  all  in  all. 
Thus  Paul's  doctrine  originated  and  grew  up,  like 
a  magnificent  tree,  rooted  deeply  in  the  soil  of  the 
Christian  consciousness  and  towering  to  the  heavens. 

SYNOPTICAL  TABLE  OF  THE  PAULINE 
SYSTEM. 

Generative  principle. — The  Person   of    Christ,   the 
principle  of  the  Christian  consciousness. 

L 

THE   CHRISTIAN    PRINCIPLE   IN    THE   SPHERE   OF 
PSVCHOEOCV. 

A  nthropology. 
I.  Impossibility  of   attaining  justification    by  the 


ORGANIC  FORM   OF   THEOLGGTCAt.   SYSTEM.     281 

law. — ufiapria,  (xdp^. — 6  v6/xo^,  6  ddvaro^. — Negative 
development 

2.  Justification  by  faith. — rj  BiKaioavvt]  Geov. — 0 
X0709  Tov  (TTavpov. — jj  TTio-Tt?. — »}  ^ci)//. — PosUive  de- 
velopment. 

11. 

THE   CHRI.STIAN    PRINXIPLP:   IN   THE  .SPHERE  OF 
.SOCIAL   LIFE   AND   HISTORY. 

Religions  Philosophy  of  History. 

1.  Christ  and  the  Church, — (rw/xa  XpiaTov. 

2.  The  old  and  the  new  Covenant :    rf  iTrayyeXla, 

6   v6flO<i,   T)  TTtCTTtV. 

3.  Adam  and  Christ ;  or,  the  ages  of  humanity. 

4.  Eschatology, — to  reXos. 

5.  Faith,  hope,  love. 

III. 

THE   CHRLSTIAN    I'RINCIPLE   IN   THE  SPHERE  OF 
METAPHYSICS. 

Theology. 

1.  Grace  and  Predestination  :  ?}  xdpi<i,  »/  irpoBcai^ 
TOV  Geov. 

2.  Christology, — 0  Xpi<TT6<:. 

3.  The  Father,  the  Lord,  the  Holy  Spirit:  6  Tlart'ip, 
6  Kvpio<;,  TO  dyiov  Ilvevfia. 

4.  The  conception  of  God  :  0eo9  rh  Trhvra  fV  iraaiy. 


CHAPTER    I. 

THE    PERSON   OF   CHRIST,  THE    PRINCIPLE   OF    THE 
CHRISTIAN   CONSCIOUSNESS. 

IN  Paul's  view,  the  only  principle  of  the  Christian 
consciousness  is  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
characterizes,  defines,  and  constitutes  it.  It  is  im- 
portant to  state  clearly  the  intimate  and  peculiar 
relation  existing  between  the  apostle's  regenerate  con- 
sciousness and  the  actual  Person  of  Jesus. 

Paul  was  never  a  disciple  of  the  crucified  One,  in 
[  the  sense  in  which  he  was  formerly  a  disciple  of 
Gamaliel.  It  was  not  his  business  to  be  eternally 
repeating  the  Master's  words,  or  even  commenting 
on  them  as  the  rabbi  explained  or  recited  the  pre- 
cepts of  the  law.  To  Paul,  this  reproduction  of  a 
traditional  text,  this  knowledge  learned  by  rote, 
could  only  have  been  a  dead  and  death-giving  letter 
(hiaKovia  lypafifJiaros,  SiaKovia  davdrov  iv  >ypdfA/j,aTt, 
2  Cor.  iii.  6,  7).  He  never  regarded  Jesus  in  the 
light  of  a  Teacher  of  wisdom,  whose  smallest  words 
one  must  be  careful  to  treasure  up.  In  an  external 
tradition  of  this  kind  he  would  have  only  .seen  a 
carnal  and  unfruitful  knowledge. 

Beyond  this  inferior  stage,  this  wisdom  of  the 
schools,  there  is  a  deeper  and  more  vital  method  of 
learning.     It  lies  in  the  disciple's  devoted  effort  to 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE.  283 

assimilate  his  master's  method  and  spirit,  and  to 
reproduce  them  in  his  own  life  and  thought.  Thus 
Plato,  taking  his  inspiration  from  Socrates,  continued 
and  completed  the  Socratic  philosophy.  The  master 
in  this  case  is  not  merely  an  initiator,  he  is  still 
more  an  ideal  which  men  contemplate  and  strive 
to  reproduce.  Undoubtedly  Paul  contemplated  and 
admired  in  this  fashion  that  ideal  life  of  Jesus,  in 
which  he  delighted  to  perceive  and  display  the  per- 
fect standard  of  man's  spiritual  development  (fiirpov 
7]\iKia<;,  Eph.  iv.  13).  With  his  attention  concentrated 
on  this  Divine  type,  he  endeavoured  to  realize  it  more 
and  more  fully  in  himself. 

And  yet  this  relationship,  intimate  as  it  was,  does 
not  fully  explain  the  new  consciousness  of  the  apostle. 
To  him  Christ  was  more  than  a  great  ideal.  Ex- 
pressions like  the  following,  which  occur  so  often  in 
Paul's  writings — Christ  is  my  life :  As  for  myself  I 
live  no  longer ;  it  is  Christ  who  lives  in  me — evidently 
go  further,  and  reveal  a  unique  and  peculiar  relation 
between  his  consciousness  and  the  Person  of  Jesus, 
such  as  could  not  possibly  exist  between  one  man 
and  another. 

In  every  man,  however  great  he  may  be,  there  is, 
in  truth,  a  material  element  which  cannot  and  ought 
not  to  enter  into  ourselves,  an  element  which  the 
mind  cannot  assimilate.  The  most  enthusiastic  and 
faithful  disciple  has  always  to  make  a  distinction 
between  the  mind  of  his  master  and  its  outward 
form,  the  husk  that  contains  and  limits  it.  In  other 
words,  there  is  in  every  human  personality  a  negative 
clement,  a  residuum  which  our  admiration  sets  aside 
and  ignores.  This  limitation  .separates  and  always 
will  separate  the  adherence  of  the  disciple  from  the 


284  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


faith  of  the  behever ;  it  distinguishes  enthusiasm 
from  adoration.  There  is  but  one  Being  in  whom 
God  is  all,  and  who  can  become  all  in  us.  Because 
Jesus  was  able  to  say,  "  He  that  hath  seen  Me  hath 
seen  the  Father,"  therefore  He  could  give  His  own 
Person  as  the  object  of  the  soul's  faith  and  love,  as 
its  veritable  sustenance.  His  personality  is  so  per- 
fectly holy,  so  entirely  spiritual,  that  in  accepting  it 
we  receive  it  as  a  whole,  without  making  any  dis- 
tinction or  division.  Jesus  was,  like  no  other,  tJie 
spiritual  Man.  As  a  quickening  spirit  (TrveO/xa  \!fi)0- 
TTocovv,  I  Cor.  XV.  45),  He  becomes  a  principle  of  life 
for  other  spirits.  Paul  even  goes  further  :  he  declares 
that  the  Lord  is  actually  t/te  Spirit  (2  Cor.  iii.  17). 
Hence  His  office,  and  His  power.  That  which  is 
merely  metaphor,  when  we  speak  of  a  philosopher 
as  living  again  in  his  disciples,  is  a  spiritual  reality 
when  applied  to  Jesus  in  relation  to  Christians. 
Christ  was  not  only  the  P^ounder  of  the  Church  ;  He 
/  is  still  its  principle  of  life,  the  inner  soul  which  causes 
its  constant  growth  and  makes  its  death  impossible. 

Paul,  then,  was  not  merely  the  disciple  or  the 
imitator  of  Jesus.  Nor  did  he  regard  himself  as  a 
new  incarnation  of  the  same  spirit,  which  would  imply 
that  the  first  had  only  a  relative  and  temporary  value. 
He  became  a  member  of  Christ ;  he  was  possessed  by 
Him.  He  had  the  invincible  assurance  that  Christ 
was  not  only  the  cause,  but  the  ever  active  Creator 
of  his  .spiritual  life  and  thought.  No  one  must  re- 
present Paul  as  having  a  religious  genius  of  the 
nature  of  that  possessed  by  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ! 
Jesus  is  the  Master  ;  Paul  is  the  slave.  This  daring 
genius  bears  the  yoke ;  and  the  independence  of  which 
he  boastSj  and  w  hich  has  sometimes  been  so  much 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE.  283 


misunderstood,  is  in  reality  nothing  but  an  absolute 
dependence  upon  Christ.  His  freedom  sprang  from 
his  faith,  and  would  have  disappeared  with  it.  In 
short,  that  which  Jehovah  was  to  the  consciousness  of 
the  Old  Testament  prophets,  Jesus  became  to  the 
consciousness  of  His  apostle.  He  speaks  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  as  they  spoke  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

But  the  Lord  being  actually  the  Spirit,  His  entrance 
into  our  hearts  is  at  the  same  time  the  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  within  us.  Accordingly,  Paul 
distinct!}' calls  thi.-;  Spirit  \\\q^  Spirit  of  Christ.  The 
Spirit  thenceforward  forms  the  new  essence  of  the 
regenerate  consciousness.  By  virtue  of  it  we  are 
transformed  and  become,  like  Jesus  Christ,  spiritual 
men,  irvev/JLariKoi.  This  constant  renewal  is  a  s/>iri- 
tualisatiou,  a  permanent  glorification  of  our  whole 
being,  physical  and  moral  at  once.  We  put  off  the 
bonds  of  the  flesh  and  rise  to  liberty,  to  perfect  and 
eternal  communion  with  God.  Christianity  being  a 
religion  of  the  Spirit,  thus  becomes  the  absolute  reli- 
gion. It  completely  realizes  the  highest  aspiration 
of  everv'  religious  consciousness, — union  with  God. 
In  it  all  barriers  are  overthrown,  and  the  final  veil 
rent  asunder.  We  may  now  at  last  behold  God  face 
to  face. 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE   CHRISTIAN    PRINCIPLE   IN   THE   SPHERE   OF 
PSYCHOLOGY   (ANTHROPOLO(;y). 

THE  prime  necessity  of  Paul's  consciousness  was 
righteousness.  This  idea  of  righteousness, 
derived  by  him  from  the  Old  Testament,  linked  to- 
gether the  two  periods  of  his  life,  the  Jewish  and  the 
Christian.  It  sways  the  whole  of  his  teaching,  as  it 
engrossed  his  whole  existence. 

Righteousness  is  the  expression  of  the  normal 
relation  between  the  will  of  man  and  the  will  of  God. 
It  is  the  supreme  end  of  every  human  life.  In  that 
alone  can  we  find  rest  and  happiness.  But  as  soon 
as  man  attempts  to  realize  it,  he  immediately  finds 
a  contrary  principle  rising  up  within  him — viz.  sin, 
which  is  the  very  negation  of  righteousness.  From 
the  conflict  between  these  two  opposing  principles 
the  entire  Pauline  theology  was  engendered. 

Just  as  Paul's  life  was  divided  by  his  conversion 
into  two  parts,  one  of  which  was  the  radical  nega- 
tion of  the  other,  so  also  his  Christian  belief  was 
formulated  in  a  sweeping  antithesis :  justification 
impossible  under  the  law ;  justification  obtained  by 
faith.  The  apostle  always  developed  its  two  terms  on 
parallel  lines,  because  each  is  defined  and  explained 
by  the  other.     As  Baur  justly  perceived,  this  opposi- 

a86 


THE   PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  287 

tion  is  the  double  aspect  of  one  and  the  same  theory, 
which  is  completely  summed  up  in  these  two  con- 
tradictory propositions  : 

I.  e^  ep'ycav  vo/xov  ov  BiKaiQidijaeTai  iraaa  crap^ 
ivoiTTiov  Qeov  (Rom.  iii.  20). 

II.  6  avdptoTTo^  8iKaiovTai  iriaTet,  (Rom.  iii.  28). 

I.  Legal  Justification  Impossible. 

Man  ivill  uei'er  be  Justified  before  God  by  the  works 
of  the  Laiv. — In  the  first  three  chapters  of  his  letter 
to  the  Romans  Paul  establishes  this  first  thesis,  by 
means  of  the  testimony  of  moral  and  religious  ex- 
perience. The  fact  of  sin,  denounced  by  the  indi- 
vidual conscience,  was  indeed  the  starting  point  of 
his  religious  thought.  But  it  does  not  stop  at  this 
first  stage.  In  that  which  every  one  experiences  in 
his  own  life,  the  apostle  recognises  and  points  out  a 
general  and  universal  law  of  the  history  of  humanity. 
All  men  without  distinction,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
are  the  slaves  of  sin.  A  fact  so  general  must  have 
its  explanation  in  human  nature.  Sin  is  universal, 
— because  it  is  inevitable.  The  apostle,  by  a  very 
obvious  dialectical  course,  advances  from  the  univer- 
sality of  sin  to  the  idea  of  its  moral  necessity.  This 
admirable  demonstration  of  his  first  thesis  brings  us 
to  the  heart  of  the  Pauline  anthropology.  In  its 
final  analysis,  it  is  based  upon  the  ideas  of  sin,  of  the 
flesh,  and  of  the  laiv,  which  we  must  endeavour  to 
define. 

I.  'AfiapTia,  adp^.     Sin,  and  the  Flesh. 

An  insurmountable  obstacle  rises  up  between  man 
and  righteousness  ;  it  is  sin.  In  Paul's  phraseology, 
this   word    not    only   designates   a   particular    sinful 


288  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


action,  but  a  principle  immanent  in  human  nature, 
of  which  individual  sins  are  simply  the  external 
manifestation  (Rom.  v'ii.  8).  This  principle  is  not  a 
pure  abstraction,  but  an  objective  and  positive  power 
(h\)vaixi<^),  governing  humanity  and  enslaving  the 
individual  will.  Nowhere  is  this  objective  character 
of  the  power  of  sin  more  strikingly  exhibited  than  in 
Romans  v.  12.  Paul  there  depicts  it  as  a  new  force 
entering  into  the  development  of  the  world,  and  con- 
stituting the  whole  human  race  sinners.  He  expressly 
says  that  it  brings  death  upon  all  men,  both  upon 
those  who,  like  Adam,  transgressed  a  positive  law,  and 
on  those  who  lived  without  it,  like  the  generations 
between  Adam  and  Moses.  The  words  e^'  oS  7ra^Te9 
ijfjbapTov,  which  are  employed  to  justify  the  univer- 
sality of  death,  do  not  indicate  a  subjective  and  active 
guilt  in  the  individual,  but  an  objective  and  passive 
state  of  sin.  Sin  having  come  into  the  world  by 
the  transgression  of  one  man,  entered  (ela-ijXdev)  like 
leaven  into  the  general  life  of  humanity  and  extended 
its  power  to  every  individual  (et?  Travra?  SijjXdev), 
constituting  men  sinners  by  nature,  even  before  the 
manifestation  of  their  individual  will.  This  power 
takes  growing  possession  of  the  world  and  of  huma- 
nity, permeating  and  transforming  them  till  they 
become  instruments,  or  rather  incarnations  of  sin. 

How  does  this  development  of  evil  accomplish 
itself  and  reach  its  climax  ?  We  cannot  answer  this 
question,  nor  advance  further,  without  explaining  the 
relation  of  this  power  of  sin  to  that  which  Paul  calls 
the  Jles/i.  This  is  the  most  delicate  and  difficult 
point  to  elucidate  in  his  whole  system. 

Paul's  doctrine  is  equally  remote  from  the  Gnostic 
dualism  and  from  Pelagianism. 


THE   PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  289 


The  apostle  expressly  says  that  the  flesh  is  the 
scat  of  sin  {oiKoucra  iu  efioi  .  .  .  toOt'  eaitv  iv  ttj 
aapKi  fiov,  Rom.  vii.  17,  18  ;  comp.  ver.  23).  Did  he 
see  in  the  flesh  the  essential  principle  of  sin,  and  was 
his  theory,  after  all,  based  on  a  metaphysical  dualism? 
Did  he  on  this  point  depart  from  Hebrew  tradition 
and  Jewish  modes  of  thought,  which  excluded  all 
dualism,  and  adopt  in  preference  the  ancient  con- 
ception of  heathen  philosophy  ?  M.  Holsten  has 
vigorously  advanced  this  view,  and  has  perseveringly 
ransacked  the  Pauline  theology  for  evidence  of  this 
pretended  dualism.  Hardly  anywhere,  to  our  think- 
ing, has  he  grasped  more  than  a  fleeting  shadow. 
The  relation  of  sin  to  the  flesh  is  not  purely  ijninmienty 
but  also  transcendent.  It  is  not  that  the  physical  law 
of  the  flesh  constitutes  sin  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  the 
law  of  sin  has  become,  and  continues  to  be,  the  law  of 
the  flesh.  From  the  time  that  it  was  subjugated  by 
the  power  of  evil,  the  flesh  became  weaky  subjected 
to  vanity  and  the  hot^dc^ge  of  corruption  {/xaTaioTTjTi, 
Tij  SovXeia  T<}?  (})dopa^,  chap.  viii.  20,  2l).  In  other 
words,  the  relation  of  sin  to  the  flesh  is,  in  Paul's  view, 
identical  with  that  which  the  Uvevfia  (the  Divine 
Spirit)  sustains  to  the  soul  of  the  believer.  In  both 
cases  there  is  an  actual  immanence,  but  an  immanence 
which  presupposes  an  objective  transcendence.  This 
transcendence  of  the  power  of  sin  is  strikingly  pro- 
minent in  the  passage  we  have  just  analysed  (Rom. 
v.  12).  Sin  entered  the  world  not  at  the  time  of 
man's  creation,  but  through  the  transgression  {irapd- 
TTTafia)  of  the  first  Adam.  So,  too,  in  attributing  to 
Christ  a  flesh  like  ours,  the  apostle  does  not  mean  to 
attribute  sin  to  Him,  and  most  jealously  maintains 
His  absolute  purity  (2  Cor.  v.  21).     In  the  third  place, 

19 


290  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

how  could  he,  from  the  dualistic  point  of  view,  speak 
of  a  redemption  of  tJie  body,  and  represent  this  as  the 
final  accomplishment  of  salvation  (Rom.  viii.  23)  ? 
Our  salvation,  in  that  case,  would  have  been  complete 
as  soon  as  our  souls  were  freed  from  material  bonds.^ 
To  escape  this  dualism,  we  need  not,  on  the  other 

'  Paul  nowhere  expressly  speaks  of  the  origin  of  evil ;  perhaps 
he  never  even  considered  this  metaphysical  question.  If  his 
ideas  about  sin  are  logically  worked  out,  we  find  that  they 
divide  and  flow  in  two  opposing  currents.  At  first  sight,  there 
s  the  traditional  theological  explanation  of  evil  as  a  meta- 
physical and  transcendent  force  introduced  into  the  world  by 
the  Devil-serpent  (Rom.  v.  12  ;  comp.  2  Cor.  xi.  3).  This  is 
the  opinion  which  Paul  received  from  the  schools,  and  which 
he  did  not  reject.  But  his  own  reflection  and  psychological 
analysis  took  another  direction.  According  to  Rom.  vii.  7-21 
and  I  Cor.  xv.  46  man  appears  at  the  first  as  psychical, — or 
carnal ;  from  this  inferior  condition  the  spiritual  man  has  to 
be  djeveloped.  The  transition  is  effected  by  the  revelation  ot 
the  law,  which  comes  to  disturb  the  unity  and  peace  of  man 
in  his  childish,  animal  condition,  bringing  division  and  inward 
conflict.  Without  the  law,  sin  was  dead.  It  came  into  life 
and  existence  through  the  law  ;  so  that  the  latter  inevitably  led 
to  the  fall.  In  the  first  moral  action,  therefore,  there  are  two 
things  :  the  appearance  of  the  law,  which  implies  an  advance, 
for  the  law  is  holy,  just,  and  good  ;  and  of  transgression,  which 
is  a  fall.  But  the  two  elements  are  inseparable.  The  latter 
theory  is  the  only  one  which  accords  with  the  logical  organi- 
zation of  Paul's  system. 

[The  author  resumes  this  question  in  his  essay  entitled 
Lori^ine  du  pechc  dans  le  systhne  theologiqne  de  Paul  (Paris, 
1S87).  He  here  develops  with  brilliant  logic  the  "psycho- 
logical" solution  of  this  problem  ;  and  boldly  subordinates  the 
interpretation  of  Rom.  v.  12-14  to  that  of  vii.  7-21,  seeing  in 
Paul's  inner  conflict  a  rehearsal  and  a  mirror  of  that  which 
took  place  in  Adam.  But  this  explanation  ignores  the  factor 
of  heredity  ;  and  here,  it  seems  to  us,  lies  its  fatal  defect.  Paul 
is  not  where  Adam  was  ;  for  he  is  a  son  of  Adam  ^ 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  291 


hand,  like  some  expositors,  go  the  length  of  making 
Paul's  doctrine  meaningless  and  robbing  it  of  origin- 
ality, by  separating  sin  and  the  flesh  to  such  an  extent 
that  it  becomes  impossible   to  understand  why  the 
apostle  always  associates  them  so  closely.     True,  the 
word  (Tup^  is  sometimes  applied  to  the  whole  man ;  but 
even  then  it  does  not  entirely  lose  its  original  mean- 
ing ;  the  fundamental  idea  is  still  that  of  the  material 
organization.     The  term  flesh  when  applied  to  human 
nature   in  general,  designates   it    in    so   far   as  it  is 
governed  by  the  laws  of  material  existence.     Hence 
the  apostle  speaks  of  the  mind,  zvill  and  even  spirit  of 
the  flesh  {t^povrjixa  tj}?  aapKot,  Rom.  viii.  6  ;  diXrj/ia 
rijt  aapKo'i,  Eph.  ii.  3  ;   vov^:  t/}?  <7ap/c6^,  Col.  ii.  18). 
The  flesh  already  governed  by  sin,  in  its  turn  gives 
the  mind,  the  will,  and  the  entire  nature  of  man  its 
bias  towards  sin.     To  persist  in  considering  the  sub- 
jective determination  of  the  individual  will   as   the 
origin   of  sin    would    prevent  our   having   the   least 
understanding  of  Paul's  doctrine.     Sin  within  us  is 
pre-existent  to  the  will.     It  has  its  seat  in  our  material 
organization  ;  and  as  this  organization  takes  the  lead 
in  our  development,  sin  grows  with  it,  and  takes  pos- 
session of  us  even  before  we  acquire  self-consciousness. 
How  did  our  flesh  become  sinful  ?    This  Paul  never 
explains.     He  contents  himself  with  establishing  the 
fact  that  man's  physical  organization  and  his  spiritual 
nature  are  in  conflict,  and  that  in  this  conflict  the 
spirit  has  been  vanquished  and  swallowed  up  in  the 
flesh.      The  spirit   should    have   glorified  and  spiri- 
tualized the  body ;  but  the  body  has  humiliated  and 
materialized  the  spirit.     The  man  has  become  carnal; 
and  in  this  fact  the  triumph  of  sin  consists.     It  has 
so  possessed  itself  of  the  flesh,  as  to  become  incarnate 


292  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

there.  Through  this  instrument  it  now  reigns,  and 
holds  all  men  captive  (Rom.  vi.  19).  Thus  there  is 
a  radical  dualism  between  the  flesh  and  the  spirit 
asserted  in  Paul's  doctrine;  but  it  does  not  possess 
the  metaphysical  character  M.  Holsten  imputes  to 
it.  Though  reaching  beyond  the  moral  sphere,  the 
dualism  established  by  the  apostle  is  nevertheless 
essentially  ethical  ;  and  this  gives  it  its  tragical  and 
distressing  character.  The  spirit,  which  is  still  the 
organ  of  the  mind,  and  the  flesh  now  become  the 
instrument  of  sin  {(Tap^  ufxapriaf;,  cwixa  rPjf  a/j.apTLa^, 
Rom.  viii.  3  ;  vi.  6),  are  constantly  brought  into  col- 
lision by  their  conflicting  desires  {javTa  Se  d\A,i/\oi? 
uiTixeLTai,  Gal.  v.  1 7).  This  contest  can  only  be 
ended  by  the  utter  annihilation  of  the  flesh.  Sin 
must  be  destroyed  in  it  and  with  it  (Rom.  vi.  10; 
viii.  13  ;  I  Cor.  xv.  50). 

We  may  now  gain  some  idea  of  man's  real  state. 
He  is  no  longer  free;  he  is  so/d  to  sin  (iyu)  Be  aap/civ6<;, 
TreTrpafievof:  viro  rrjv  ufxapTiav,  Rom,  vii.  14).  Never- 
theless, he  is  not  altogether  evil  ;  he  still  makes  a 
distinction  in  himself,  the  distinction  between  his  real 
nature  and  the  power  of  evil  which  prevails  over  him. 
There  is  in  him  what  Paul  calls  i/ie  imvard  man 
(chap.  vii.  22),  which  delights  in  the  law  of  God.  He 
continues  to  possess  the  voi)<?,  which  desires  and 
perceives  the  good.  But  this  knowledge  is  only  theo- 
retical, having  no  decisive  influence  on  the  will  ;  it 
is  an  empty  form  without  spiritual  power,  wanting  the 
TTvevfui  which  alone  can  give  it  efficacy.^    Man  thence- 

^  Setting  aside  the  «/n^X^,  elsewhere  included  in  the  flesh,  of 
which  indeed  it  is  the  vital  principle  (i/'i'xtfos  =  o-apKivo?,  i  Cor.  ii. 
14  ;  iii.  i),  we  may  say  that  the  Pauline  psychology  distinguishes 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  29 j 


forward  feels  himself  divided  between  the  impotent 
wish  to  do  good  and  the  irresistible  impulses  of  the 
flesh.  In  this  unhappy  condition  his  life  is  protracted 
for  a  brief  space,  only  to  be  extinguished  in  the  end  ; 
for  the  power  of  sin  is  essentially  destructive.  It  has 
stirred  up  the  flesh  against  the  spirit,  to  destroy  the 
spiritual  life.  But  the  flesh,  in  its  turn,  when  sepa- 
rated from  the  spirit,  finds  the  vital  force  departing 
by  which  it  had  been  sustained  ;  it  grows  weak  ;  it 
is  doomed  to  corruption.  A  struggle  breaks  out 
between  its  various  inclinations  ;  and  its  life  becomes 
simply  a  rapid  progress  towards  death.  Thus  Paul 
calls  the  flesh  when  sold  to  sin  a  body  of  death,  or 
the  body  of  this  death  (to  acofxa  tov  Oavurov  tovtov, 
Rom.  vii.  24). 

Such  is  the  development   of  human   life  towards 


in  man  four  elements :  o-w/xa,  o-apf,  voD?,  7rvcv/ia.  Two  of  them 
fall  under  the  general  category  of  substance, — crap^^  ■nVf.vfi.a  : 
the  first  being  the  substance  of  the  body,  the  other  the  substance 
of  his  inner  being.  The  two  others  fall  under  the  general 
category  oifonn  :  the  o-w/xa  is  the  individual  form  of  the  crdpi ; 
the  VOL'S  is  the  human  form  of  the  TV£v/j.a.  That  which  con- 
stitutes the  weakness  of  man's  spiritual  nature  is  his  loss  of  the 
substantial  force  of  the  •m-cv/xa.  This  spiritual  force  has  been 
replaced  in  the  vov<i  by  that  of  the  (Tap$.  The  lous  has  thus 
become  a  voDj  o-apKos,  its  thought  a  (ftpovrj/xa  t7;;  crapKo?,  and 
its  will  a  6i\rjfxa  t^s  aapKos.  Hence,  in  the  Pauline  theology, 
man's  redemption  is  of  necessity  a  ttezu  spiritual  creation.  To 
the  question,  Does  Paul  recognise  the  existence  of  TneD/xa  in  the 
natural  man  ?  we  must  therefore  reply  in  the  negative.  In  every 
passage  where  he  speaks  of  the  ■jrvt.Zp.a  of  the  sinful  man,  this 
word  no  longer  has  the  specific  meaning  that  we  have  just 
defined,  but  the  general  sense  of  our  word  mind.  Finally, 
that  which  Paul  calls  the  heart  (KapBia),  is  not  the  region  of 
feeling  alone ;  it  is  the  centre  where  all  the  elements  constituting 
human  nature  are  blended  into  one  organic  whole. 


294  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

death,  which  the  apostle  constantly  sets  forth  as 
carried  on  organically  through  the  working  of  sin. 
But  at  this  point  a  new  power  intervenes  to  accelerate 
this  fatal  issue  and  render  it  yet  more  tragic.  This 
power  is  the  laiv. 

2.  '0  voixo<i.     The  Law. 

The  law,  being  the  perfect  expression  of  the  will  of 
God,  is  holy,  just,  and  good  (Rom.  vii.  12).  The  cause 
of  its  want  of  power  does  not  lie  in  itself,  but  entirely 
in  the  flesh  (Rom.  viii.  3).  The  law  is  spiritual — man 
is  carnal  ;  and  hence  a  mutual  and  irreconcilable 
contradiction  (6  vojxo';  irvev/JLaTiKO'i — eVo)  Be  aapKiv6<;, 
Rom.  vii.  14). 

God  did  not  give  the  law,  therefore,  to  bring  about 
the  justification  of  sinners.  In  order  to  be  saved, 
man  must  be  restored  to  life  ;  but  it  is  not  within  the 
power  of  a  law  to  give  him  life  {el  yap  eBodrj  v6fio<; 
6  Buvdfievo<;  ^(ooTToii]crat,  ovtw?  e^  vofiov  av  ijv  i) 
BiKaioavvr},  Gal.  iii.  21).  The  law  shows  man  what 
righteousness  is,  but  does  not  impart  it  to  him  :  it  is 
unattainable  by  the  flesh.  For  it  was  promulgated 
not  to  effect  righteousness,  but  to  realize  and  multiply 
sin  (Rom.  v.  20  ;  vii.  7-1 1  ;  Gal.  iii.  19). 

In  truth,  sin,  before  it  can  be  pardoned  and  de- 
stroyed, must  realize  all  its  potentialities  and  attain 
its  complete  development.  The  very  function  of  the 
law  is  to  bring  sin  to  this  full  maturity.  The  law, 
in  this  sense,  is  actually  the  power  of  sin  (rj  Bviafii^ 
T7}9  ufiapTia<;  6  v6p,o^,  I  Cor.  xv.  56).  It  is  that  which 
gives  to  it  subjective  reality, — which,  in  short,  makes 
sin  sinful.  It  pushes  sin  onward  from  its  virtual 
condition  to  that  of  positive  transgression  (Rom.  vii. 
8,9;  iv.  15). 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  295 


With  no  less  penetration  than  vigour,  Paul  de- 
scribes this  inevitable  development  of  sin  under  the 
irresistible  impulse  of  the  law.  We  do  not  know  sin 
except  by  the  law  (t^v  afiapriav  ovk  eyvwv,  el  fii)  Bia 
vofiov,  Rom.  vii.  7).  Setting  itself  up  before  me  as 
the  sovereign  rule  of  my  actions,  the  law  at  the  same 
time  makes  me  conscious  of  their  moral  imperfection. 
It  is  the  law,  for  instance,  which  reveals  to  me  the  sin 
of  covetousness  by  saying  to  me :  Thou  shalt  not 
covet.  (Aia  vofiov  iTrtyvaxn^  dfjLapTia<;,  Rom.  iii.  20.) 
It  does  still  more.  Previously  to  the  coming  of  the 
law,  sin  indeed  was  within  me ;  but  I  had  not  the 
slightest  consciousness  of  it  ;  it  was  there  as  a  latent, 
unawakened  force, — as  Paul  puts  it,  it  was  dead 
(d/jbapTia  veKpd,  chap.  vii.  8),  The  law  awakens  and 
re-animates  it.  Without  law,  there  is  no  transgres- 
sion. More  than  this,  not  only  does  transgression 
become  possible  under  the  commandment ;  but  the 
prohibition  inevitably  gives  birth  in  me  to  the  desire 
for  the  thing  forbidden  (Rom.  vii.  11).  Nitimur  in 
vetitum  semper.  Thus  sin  becomes  transgression,  and 
brings  itself  under  the  curse.  The  law  passes  the 
sentence  of  death  against  me  ;  instead  of  giving  me 
life,  it  slays  mc.  Such  is  the  revolution  inevitably 
effected  by  it  in  my  nature.  Formerly,  without  the 
law,  I  was  alive.  My  life  flourished  unimpeded ; 
nothing  disturbed  its  unity.  Now  the  law  has  come  ; 
sin  has  revived  in  me  ;  and  I  myself  am  dead  ! 

The  consciousness  of  sin,  the  realization  of  sin 
through  transgression,  the  sentence  of  death  passed 
upon  the  sinner, — these  arc  the  three  stages  of  the 
development  of  evil  brought  about  by  the  law.  But 
this  penalty  of  death,  the  wages  of  sin,  is  not  only 
passed  by  the  law  against  the  sinner  from  without,  in 


296  rilE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

the  form  of  a  judicial  sentence  ;  it  is  also  realized 
within,  exciting  in  human  nature  that  unhappy  con- 
flict between  the  law  of  the  members  and  the  law  of 
the  understanding,  in  which  the  life  of  the  individual 
is  consumed.  The  apostle,  at  the  close  of  the  seventh 
chapter  of  Romans,  sets  before  us  this  inward  struggle 
and  progress  towards  dissolution,  which  inevitably 
terminates  in  death.  The  holier  the  law  and  the 
more  clearly  it  shows  me  what  I  ought  to  be,  so 
much  the  more  does  it  overwhelm  me  with  the  sense 
of  what  I  am.  The  spiritual  height  of  the  command 
only  helps  me  the  better  to  measure  the  depth  of 
my  corruption.  Between  what  I  desire  and  what  I 
can  do,  between  my  understanding  which  apprehends 
the  good,  and  my  flesh  which  realizes  the  evil, 
between  my  aspirations  and  my  tendencies,  there  is 
an  ever-widening  contrast.  It  seems  as  though  I 
were  only  engaged  in  my  own  destruction,  desiring 
good  but  practising  evil,  and  condemning  myself  for 
doing  so.  It  is  an  intestine  war,  in  which  my  under- 
standing attacks  and  scorns  my  flesh,  and  my  flesh 
revenges  itself  by  crushing  the  vain  desires  of  my 
understanding.  I  no  longer  know  what  I  am  about; 
for  I  fail  to  do  what  I  would,  and  I  do  just  that 
which  I  hate.  In  vain  do  I  strive  to  put  an  end  to  the 
conflict ;  in  vain  do  I  redouble  my  efibrts  to  observe 
the  law  and  overcome  the  flesh.  In  this  struggle, 
in  which  I  am  my  own  adversary,  I  am  invariably 
defeated.  I  shall  never  escape  from  it,  till  I  am  dead. 
My  life  cannot  last  in  this  agony  ;  I  sink  in  that 
despair  which  is  the  beginning  and  the  foretaste  of 
death ! 

Paul    brings  the    demonstration  of  his  first  thesis 
to  a  close  with  an  energy  that  is  truly  terrible.     Not 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  297 


only  docs  man  fail  to  obtain  justification  by  means 
of  the  law,  but  it  logically  conducts  him  to  a  dia- 
metrically opposite  result.  The  law  is  holy  and 
spiritual,  it  is  true  ;  but  as  man  can  only  fulfil  it  by 
means  of  the  flesh,  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  works 
of  the  law  iep'^a.  voiiov)  are,  in  reality,  mere  works 
of  the  flesh  (e/jya  aapKo^).  It  is  useless  to  multiply 
these  external  works  ;  he  only  multiplies  the  causes 
of  his  condemnation  and  aggravates  his  guilt.  We 
see  that  the  abyss  is  really  bottomless  ;  and  every 
effort  which  the  man  makes  to  extricate  himself,  only 
plunges  him  further  in  its  depths.  But  at  the  very 
point  where  he  despairs  of  himself,  the  grace  of  God 
takes  hold  of  him  and  saves  him. 

II.  Man  Justified  bv  Faith  in  Christ. 

This  development  of  the  power  of  sin,  under  the 
impetus  given  by  the  law,  is  met  in  the  apostle's 
doctrine  by  a  corresponding  development  of  holiness, 
the  essential  principle  of  which  is  God's  rigJiteoiis7tess  ; 
its  means,/rt////  in  Jesus  Christ — its  end,  life. 

What  Paul  intended  by  his  use  of  the  expression 
BiKacoa-vvr]  0eov  has  not  always  been  fully  appre- 
hended. This  genitive  case  has  often  been  con- 
sidered equivalent  to  evduTnov  Qeov,  and  has  been 
translated  the  righteousness  that  avails  before  God 
(Rom.  iii.  20).  Righteousness,  it  is  said,  was  the  end 
in  view  ;  and  Paul  only  wished  to  ascertain  whether 
it  could  be  obtained  by  the  law  or  by  faith.  On  that 
view,  the  passage  would  express  a  general  notion, 
resolved  into  two  subordinate  ideas — negative  and 
positive  respectively ;  and  the  Pauline  theory  might 
be  interpreted  thus : 


298  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


rj  BiKULoavur}  tov  @eou. 


y)  e/c  vofMov  hiKatoavvr}.  i)  e/c  Trt'crTecu?  hiKaLoavvrj} 
There  is,  however,  a  grave  error  here,  which  touches 
the  very  essence  of  the  apostle's  doctrine,  and  mis- 
represents it  from  the  outset.  In  every  passage  where 
this  expression  recurs,  the  BiKaLoavvt]  Qeov  is  directly 
opposed  to  justification  by  the  law,  as  an  absolutely 
contrary  idea ;  it  is  represented  as  being  itself  the 
source  of  justification  by  faith  (Rom.  i.  17  ;  iii.  21). 
If  the  righteousness  obtained  by  faith  is  in  opposi- 
tion to  justification  by  the  fulfilment  of  the  law,  the 
hiKaioavvri  Qeov  must  be  opposed  to  the  IBla  StKaio- 
avvq  (Rom.  x.  3).  Instead  of  the  foregoing  triads 
we  have  a  double  antithesis  : 

77  Ihia  hiKaioavvrj — 7/  hLKaioovvrj  tov  Qeov  : 
Tj  e/c  vojiov  ScKaioavvri — 1)  €k  Tricrrecy?  hiKaiocrvvrj. 
The  ZiKaioavvq  ©eov  is  the  righteousness  of  which 
God  is  the  Author,  and  which  He  gives  freely,  in  con- 
trast to  the  righteousness  which  man  seeks  by  his  own 
efforts  (ISia  hiKaioavvq).  This  righteousness  exists 
already  in  God  as  an  attribute  and  active  force  ;  it  is 
transferred  to  man,  and  realized  in  him  by  the  action 
of  Divine  grace  (^BLKaiovfxevoi  hcopeav  ifj  ai/rov  '^dpt,Ti, 
Rom.  iii.  24).  Paul  himself  has  explained  his  doc- 
trine very  fully  in  Romans  iii.  25,  26.  In  this  latter 
passage  the  words  Trpo?  W/c  evSet^iv  t^9  BiKaioavvi]^ 
avTov  are  fully  defined  by  those  that  follow  :  6t9  to 
elvac  avrov  hiKaiov,  koI  hiKatovvra  tov  ck  iriarco)^. 
Thus  SiKaLoavi'T]  ©eov  =  0eo?  BiKUio'i  Kal  SiKatoJv.  The 
idea  is  that  of  a  positive  righteousness  immanent  in 


^  See  Baur,  Paitlus,  vol.  ii.,  p.  147  [Eng.  trans.,  ii.,  136].  He 
seems  to  have  abandoned  this  view  in  his  Netttestatnetitlichc 
Tkcologie  (1864),  p.  134. 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  299 


God,  and  manifesting  itself  outwardly  in  the  sinner's 
justification.  This  conception  is  surprising  to  us, 
accustomed  as  we  are,  by  our  very  use  of  language, 
to  give  the  word  righteousness  a  merely  negative 
meaning.  We  are  so  thoroughly  prepossessed  with 
this  judicial  and  inferior  notion,  that  it  is  difficult 
for  us  to  rise  to  this  far  higher  and  finer  idea  of  a 
righteousness  which  is  imparted,  and  which  tends 
everywhere  to  substitute  good  for  evil  and  life  for 
death.  No  contradiction  must  be  asserted,  therefore, 
between  the  righteousness  of  God,  in  the  apostle's 
sense  of  this  word,  and  the  grace  of  God.  While  the 
word  %a/3f9  indicates  the  act  of  love  by  which  God 
saves  man,  the  phrase  SiKaioauvrj  Oeov  simply  defines 
the  nature  and  moral  quality  of  this  Divine  act. 

The  hiKULoavvq  Oeov,  thus  understood,  is  more 
than  a  simple  acquittal  of  the  guilty  ;  it  is  an  actual 
power  (Svvafii^  &eov),  which  enters  into  the  world  and 
is  organically  developed  there, — like  the  power  of  sin, 
but  in  opposition  to  it.  We  have  observed  how  the 
latter  passed  from  its  virtual  (a/iaprta)  to  its  actual 
state,  and  became  realized  in  transgression  (irapd- 
^aai^),  thus  arriving  at  its  final  condition  of  irapd- 
TTTw/xa.  The  rightcousmss  of  God  follows  a  dialectical 
course  exactly  parallel  to  this.  The  BtKaioavpij  &€ov, 
itself  a  transcendent  principle,  finds  expression  in 
the  hLKai(a(Ti,<;,  the  act  of  justification  ;  and  reaches  its 
end  in  the  BiKaCcofMa,  which  is  righteousness  realized. 
The  first  process  results  of  necessity  in  death  ;  the 
latter,  with  equal  necessity,  results  in  life.  In  each 
case  there  is  a  similar  logical  processjis,  accomplished 
both  in  the  individual  life  and  in  history. 

We  can  at  once  perceive  how  far  removed  was 
Paul's  real  belief  from  the  theory  of  forensic  justi- 


30O  TH^  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


fication  elaborated  by  the  scholasticism  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  According  to  this  theory,  the  act  of  justification 
is  a  mere  verdict  of  nonsuit  {ordonnance  de  non-lieu) 
on  the  part  of  God, — a  sentence  alike  inadequate  and 
arbitrary.  The  whole  case  is  reduced  to  that  of  an 
old  debt  paid  to  God  by  Jesus.  On  this  assumption 
there  ceases  to  be  any  organic  connexion  between 
justification  and  regeneration  ;  at  the  most,  there 
remains,  as  a  mere  external  bond,  the  sentiment  of 
gratitude  due  from  the  man  who  is  set  free  to  his 
liberator.  Not  only  is  the  nerve  of  the  apostle's 
reasoning  thus  destroyed,  but  we  cannot,  on  this  con- 
ception of  the  matter,  even  prove  sufficiently  the  duty 
of  gratitude. 

Is  it  not  obvious,  indeed,  that  to  insist  on  the 
necessity  of  this  one  duty  is  to  return  in  the  end,  by 
a  circuitous  route,  to  the  very  principle  to  be  avoided, 
viz.  that  of  justification  by  works ;  and  that  this 
theory  leaves  us  with  an  irreducible  dualism  set  up 
in  our  soteriology  ? 

Paul  would  not  have  found  words  severe  enough 
to  stigmatize  such  a  flagrant  misinterpretation  of  his 
doctrine.  True,  he  has  said  that  God  in  His  mercy 
declares  justification  and  deliverance  for  the  sinner  ; 
but  he  does  not  know — and  had  he  known,  would 
never  have  admitted — that  subtle  distinction  between 
declaring  righteous  and  making  righteous,  justuni 
dicere  and  justuui  faccre,  which  has  been  the  object 
of  so  much  dispute.  To  him,  the  word  of  God  is 
always  creative  and  full  of  power  ;  it  always  produces 
an  actual  effect.  In  declaring  a  man  justified,  there- 
fore, it  actually  and  directly  creates  within  him  a  new 
beginning  of  righteousness.  The  SiKaioavvrj  Seov 
from  that  moment  enters  as  an  active  force  into  the 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  301 

heart  and  life  of  the  believer,  and  there  becomes  the 
fruitful  source  of  a  permanent  sanctification.  Re- 
generation is  simply  the  consequence  of  justification  ; 
and  works  arc  but  the  outcome  of  faith. 

Such  is  the  profound  unity  and  organic  sequence 
of  the  Pauline  doctrine.  We  shall  now  endeavour  to 
reproduce  it  by  indicating  its  essential  features. 

3.  'O  X6yo<i  Tov  (TTavpov.      T/ie  Cross. 

In  the  death  of  Jesus  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
its  active  force  was  historically  realized  and  revealed 
to  all  men  (-rre^avepcoTai).  It  there  appears  as  a 
positive  act  of  justification  (BiKai(oai<;),  seeking  to 
realize  itself  finally  through  faith  in  the  soul  of  the 
believer,  where  it  becomes  an  actual  state  of  righteous- 
ness {SiKaLOifia,  Rom.  iii.  24;  iv.  25  ;  viii.  4). 

Thus  the  death  of  Jesus  comes  to  be  the  centre  of 
the  whole  Pauline  system.  The  apostle's  Chris- 
tianity is  summed  up  in  the  Person  of  Christ  ;  but 
this  Person  itself  only  acquires  its  proper  redemptive 
significance  when  He  dies  on  the  cross.  Hence  we 
can  quite  understand  the  apostle's  declaration  that  he 
wishes  to  know  nothing  but  Christ  and  Christ  cruci- 
fied (i  Cor.  ii.  2).  With  the  death  of  Jesus,  however, 
is  necessarily  associated  the  fact  of  His  resurrection. 
Not  only  are  these  two  logically  connected  in  Paul's 
doctrine,  but  we  might  even  consider  them  as  one 
and  the  same  act,  since  they  set  forth  the  two  suc- 
cessive and  essential  stages  of  justification.  With 
the  first  Paul  connects  the  entire  negative  aspect  of 
redemption — deliverance  from  guilty  and  the  de- 
struction of  the  power  of  sin  ;  to  the  second  he 
refers  its  whole  positive  aspect — ^justification,  and  the 
creation  of  spiritual  life  (Rom.  iv.  25  ;  vi.  i-ii). 


302  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


The  ecclesiastical  theory  of  expiation,  so  far  from 
interpreting  the  apostle's  doctrine  aright,  amounts  to 
its  formal  contradiction.^  The  idea  of  an  external 
satisfaction,  given  to  God  in  order  to  wrest  the  pardon 
of  sinners  from  Him,  is  foreign  to  all  the  epistles. 
Paul  nowhere  says  that  God  needed  to  be  appeased. 
He  starts  from  the  contrary  point  of  view.  The 
pardon  of  sin  is  ever  the  spontaneous  act  of  God's 
love.  It  is  His  sovereign  and  absolute  grace  which 
took,  and  still  maintains  the  initiative  in  the  work  of 
redemption.  The  sacrifice  of  Christ,  so  far  from  being 
the  cause  of  this  love,  is  its  effect.  It  was  not  accom- 
plished outside  the  sphere  of  grace — outside,  as  one 
might  say,  of  God  Himself — in  order  to  influence 
the  Divine  will ;  but  God  Himself  ivas  in  Christ,  re- 
conciling  the  world  to  Himself  by  Him  (2  Cor.  v.  19). 

As  Paul  does  not  admit  the  traditional  dualism  in 
God  between  love  and  righteousness,  so  neither  does 
he  make  any  separation  between  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  the  destruction  of  sin  itself.  The  idea  of  an 
external  expiation  was  not  enough  for  him.  The 
standard  passages  upon  which  it  has  been  founded 
(Rom.  iii.  25  ;  Gal.  iii.  13)  are  far  from  giving  us  his 
whole  teaching  on  the  subject ;  nor  have  they  in  the 
Pauline  theory  the  capital  importance  attributed  to 
them  by  scholastic  theology.  If  we  have  any  regard 
for  the  logical  unity  of  the  Pauline  doctrine,  we  must 


[  '  M.  Sabatier  is  scarcely  fair  to  the  "  ecclesiastical  theory," 
which  originated  in  a  profound,  though  possibly  one-sided,  sense 
of  the  guilt  of  sin  and  the  anger  which  it  has  provoked  in  the 
holy  nature  of  God.  On  his  side,  such  texts  as  Rom.  i.  18  (in 
connexion  with  vers.  16,  17);  v.  10;  Gal.  iii.  13,  demand  further 
elucidation.  See  Dorner's  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  vol. 
iii.,  pp.  120-132  ;  iv.,  99-107,  201.] 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  303 


expound  these  texts  in  harmony  with  Romans  vi. 
i-ii  ;  viii.  3  ;  and  2  Corinthians  v.  21.  Only  by  the 
aid  of  these  latter  passages  can  we  gain  an  adequate 
view  of  the  apostle's  entire  doctrine  of  Redemption. 
Now,  these  texts  make  the  practical  effect  of  the 
death  of  Jesus  to  consist  not  in  the  satisfaction  which 
it  rendered  to  God,  but  in  the  destruction  of  sin  that 
it  accomplished. 

The  more  foreign  is  the  idea  of  satisfaction  to 
Pauline  .soteriology,  the  more  essential,  on  the  con- 
trary, seems  to  be  that  o^  substitution  (2  Cor.  v.  14-16). 
The  apostle's  whole  theory  rests,  in  its  final  analysis, 
upon  a  mystical  identification  of  Jesus  with  believers : 
Jesus  becomes  all  that  we  were  ;  and  we,  on  our  part, 
become  all  that  Christ  was.  He  is  sin  in  us  ;  we  are 
righteousness  in  Him  {jov  firj  yvopra  dfiapriay  .  .  . 
ufjLapTiau  iTroir]<T€V,  Xva  r}fi€l<{  yevco/Meda  BiKaioavvr] 
&euO  iv  auTQ),  2  Cor.  v.  21).  He  made  Himself  poor 
with  all  our  poverty,  in  order  to  enrich  us  with  His 
whole  wealth  (2  Cor.  viii.  9).  Jesus,  it  .seems,  could 
not  save  humanity  while  apart  from  it.  To  realize  in 
it  the  righteousness  of  God  and  begin  for  it  a  new 
organic  development,  He  must  of  necessity  appear 
within  it  as  one  of  its  members.  Thus  the  entire 
burden  of  the  work  of  redemption  rests  upon  Christ's 
humanity, — not,  as  in  Anselm's  theory,  upon  His 
Divinity  {ht  avOpuiirov,  rov  eio?  dvOpco-rov  'It]<tov 
XpLarov,  I  Cor.  xv.  21 ;  comp.  xv.  45,  and  Rom.  v.  1$). 
Not  only  must  the  Redeemer  belong  to  humanity, 
but  He  must  subject  Himself  to  all  the  powers  which 
control  it,  to  the  objective  power  of  sin,  of  the  law 
and  of  death,  that  He  may  really  vanquish  them. 
In  other  words,  summing  up  in  Himself  all  humanity, 
He  must  allow  the  fatal  issue  of  the  life  of  sin  already 


304  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

described   to   reproduce    itself, — and    as   it   were,   to 
spend  itself  upon  His  person. 

So  it  was  with  Jesus.  When  the  time  was  fulfilled 
the  Son  of  God  appeared  in  the  world  as  a  mere  man. 
He  was  born  of  a  woman,  and  lived  under  the  law 
(Gal.  iv.  4)  ;  He  died  to  redeem  us  from  sin,  to  free 
us  from  the  law  and  rescue  us  from  death.  Sin  is 
destroyed  in  the  death  of  Jesus,  not  only  because  it 
is  openly  condemned  and  actually  punished,  but  also 
because  it  has  at  last  produced  its  worst  result.  In 
attaining  its  full  development,  it  exhausts  and  destroys 
itself  A  new  development  may  then  begin.  Thus 
Jesus  only  properly  expiates  sin  by  bringing  it  to  its 
issue.  His  death  is  the  consummation  of  the  first 
period  of  the  life  of  humanity ;  it  terminates  the  life 
of  the  flesh. 

We  must  note,  further,  the  precise  link  by  which 
this  wonderful  theory  of  redemption  is  connected  with 
that  which  Paul  has  said  concerning  the  flesh  in  its 
relation  to  sin.  The  power  of  evil  which  it  was 
Christ's  mission  to  destroy  had  taken  possession  of 
the  flesh  and  even,  as  we  said,  become  incarnate 
there.  Sin,  therefore,  could  not  be  absolutely  con- 
quered except  by  the  destruction  of  the  flesh.  Hence 
that  theological  axiom  on  which  the  whole  theory 
of  the  apostle  rests :  He  that  is  dead  is  freed  from 
sin  (o  7a/)  arcodavoiv  BeSiKaionai  uirb  rrj^;  u^apTia<i, 
Rom.  vi.  7).  Paul  makes  strict  application  of  this 
axiom  to  the  death  of  Jesus.  He  brings  the  Re- 
deemer as  near  to  sinful  and  carnal  humanity  as  it 
is  possible  to  do,  without  compromising  His  holiness. 
Such  is  the  imperative  logic  of  his  doctrine,  that  he 
does  not  shrink  from  that  most  startling  expression, 
"  God  made  Him  to  be  siu,  who  knew  no  sin."     At 


THE  PAULINE  ANTHROPOLOGY.  305 

last,  in  Romans  viii.  3,  he  plainly  says  :  "  God  sent 
His  Son  in  fiesli  entirely  resonbling  our  sinful  fleshy 
and  thus  condemned  sin  ///  the  fleshy  The  flesh  of 
Christ,  no  less  than  all  the  rest  of  His  Person,  has 
therefore  a  representative  value  ;  it  represents,  in  very 
deed,  the  sinful  flesh  of  humanity,  the  orijan  and 
seat  of  sin.  In  the  death  of  Christ  sin  is  condemned, 
the  flesh  is  crucified  and  destroyed,  and  redemption 
is  objectively  accomplished. 

4.  'H  -rricTL^.     Faith. 

By  love  Christ  accomplishes  His  identification  with 
humanity  ;  by  faith  man  attains  his  identification 
with  Christ.  Through  it  we  so  thoroughly  participate 
with  Jesus  and  become  so  entirely  one  with  Him,  that 
His  death  becomes  our  death,  and  His  resurrection 
our  own  resurrection.  With  Him  we  die  to  sin,  to  the 
law  and  the  flesh  ;  with  Him  we  triumph  over  death, 
and  are  born  again  to  new  life  (Rom.  vi.  i-i  i).  Faith 
carries  on  and  repeats  in  each  individual  life  the  v^ 
decisive  crisis,  the  revolution  that  the  death  of  Jesus 
wrought  in  history.  It  is  the  destruction  of  sin  within 
us,  the  inward  creation  of  the  Divine  life.  The  justi- 
fication and  regeneration  of  the  individual  are  only  the 
continuation  of  the  original  redemption,  which  was 
accomplished  in  the  Head  of  humanity  and  is  realized 
in  turn  by  each  of  its  members.  Faith  does  not  save 
us  by  its  own  virtue  ;  in  itself  it  is  a  mere  vain  and 
empty  form  ;  but  we  are  saved  by  its  Divine  object — 
by  the  hLKaioavvrj  Qeov  realized  in  Jesus  Christ,  which 
becomes  thenceforward  an  immanent,  living  principle 
in  us.  Through  faith  we  are  not  only  pardoned 
and  set  free  ;  we  are  at  the  same  time  regenerated, 
enfranchised,  and,  in  a  word,  restored  to  life. 

20 


^ 

'i 


3o6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

5-  a  ^(c>].     Life. 

Life  is  the  natural  fruit  of  righteousness,  just  as 
death  was  the  consequence  and  wages  of  sin  (Rom. 
vi.  22,  2i).  Though  the  flesh,  which  has  the  principle 
of  sin  still  within  it,  is  doomed  to  death,  the  believer 
possesses  in  Christ's  own  Spirit  {irvev^a  ^(ooiroioOv)  a 
principle  of  immortal  life,  which  permeates,  raises,  and 
transforms  his  entire  nature.  Formerly  there  was 
conflict  in  the  carnal  man,  a  conflict  ending  in  the 
growing  triumph  of  sin,  and  in  death  ;  there  is  still  a 
struggle  in  the  regenerate  man  between  the  old  prin- 
ciple which  is  dying  out,  and  the  new  which  is  gaining 
strength  ;  but  this  struggle  now  results  in  a  victory  of 
life  over  death,  more  and  more  perfect  and  glorious. 
All  that  is  mortal  within  us  will  in  the  end  be  ab- 
sorbed in  life.  Righteousness  will  restore  everything 
that  sin  had  destroyed. 

Through  faith  the  Christian  possesses  by  antici- 
pation all  the  riches  of  this  new  life.  He  really 
"lives  by  his  faith."  His  inner  life  is  one  of  perfect 
liberty.  He  is  not  without  law ;  for  Christ  has  be- 
come law  immanent  in  him  {evvo[xo<i  Xpiarov,  i  Cor. 
ix.  2l).  But  this  law  is  simply  a  principle  of  love, 
enabling  him  to  fulfil  the  will  of  God  with  joyous 
ease.  The  life  of  love  is  nothing  but  the  outcome  of 
faith  (Gal.  v.  6).  Thus  Paul's  great  doctrine,  having 
been  perfectly  established  in  the  realm  of  theory,  wins 
a  yet  more  splendid  triumph  in  the  sphere  of  practical 
life.  No  wonder  that  for  the  past  eighteen  centuries 
it  has  inspired  the  great  thinkers  of  Christianity  in 
the  world  of  intellect,  and  in  the  moral  world  created 
its  great  heroes. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE   CHRISTIAN    PRIN'CIPLK    IX   THE   SPHERE  OF 
SOCIETY   AND   HISTORY. 

The  Religious  Philosophy  of  History. 

I.  The  Person  of  Christ,  the  Vital 
Principle  of  the  Church. 

HITHERTO  the  Christian  principle  has  been 
confined  within  the  sphere  of  the  individual 
Hfe.  But  it  tends  by  its  very  nature  towards  a  uni- 
versal realization.  All  that  Christ  is  for  one  member 
of  humanity,  He  is  and  must  become  for  all  ;  and  the 
result  of  this  new  development  of  the  Christian  prin- 
ciple is  the  Church.  The  unity  of  the  Church  rests 
upon  the  sense,  common  to  all  its  members,  of  a 
living  communion  with  Christ. 

To  set  forth  this  essential  unity  of  the  Church, 
Paul  several  times  compares  it  to  the  organization 
of  the  human  body  (i  Cor.  xii.  12,  ff.  ;  Rom.  xii.  4) : 
"  As  in  one  body  we  have  vtany  members,  which  have 
not  all  the  same  office,  so  we  are  all  one  body  in 
Christ ;  and  wc  are  towards  each  other  what  the 
members  of  one  body  are  among  themselves."  This 
body  is  called  o-wytia  XpiaTov  (i  Cor.  xii,  27) — that  is, 
a  body  having  the  principle  of  its  being  and  the  basis 
of  its  life  in  Christ.     Christ  is  not  only  its  Head,  but 

307 


3o3  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


its  very  soul  ;  He  manifests  in  and  through  it  all 
His  hidden  virtues  (Eph.  iv.  i6  ;  Col.  ii.  19).  Thus 
regarded,  the  Church  becomes  the  body  of  Christ  (j6 
awfia  70V  Xpiarov)  ;  it  serves  as  the  external  and 
visible  manifestation,  the  material  realization  of  all 
that  Christ  Himself  is  invisibly.  Into  this  body 
Christ  pours  His  plenitude  of  life,  .so  that  the  Church, 
filled  with  the  virtues  of  its  Head,  becomes  in  turn 
the  irXtjpwfia  rou  Xpiarov  (Eph.  i.  23). 

The  Church  can  only  realize  the  full  virtue  of  its 
vital  principle  through  a  laborious  process  of  evolution. 
But  all  development  implies  variety  ;  and  hence  the 
apostle  perceives  and  acknowledges  in  the  Church 
diver.se  offices,  gifts,  and  ministries  {Statpiaeii;  ')(^apLa- 
fidrcov  ela-iv,  I  Cor.  xii.  4).  To  each  of  these  separate 
gifts  he  allows  free  and  full  development ;  and  through 
them  the  wealth  of  life  in  the  Church  is  manifested. 
But  on  the  other  hand,  these  different  cJiarisnis  pro- 
ceed from  one  and  the  same  Spirit  (ivepyel  ro  ev  Koi 
TO  av-po  nvevfia) ;  and  with  love  as  their  common 
inspiration,  all  tend  to  the  .same  goal,  the  perfecting 
of  the  whole  body  of  the  Church.  So  the  unity  of 
the  Church  is,  in  the  first  instance,  broken  up  and 
expanded  into  a  rich  variety  ;  but  this,  in  its  turn,  is 
absorbed  into  the  supreme  unity.  Such  is  the  organic 
and  harmonious  development  of  the  life  of  the  Church. 

From  this  conception  of  the  Church  is  derived  the 
Pauline  idea  of  baptism,  and  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
which  centres  in  that  of  the  substantial  union  of 
the  Christian  with  Christ.  Baptism,  the  symbol  of 
faith,  obtains  its  significance  from  faith  itself ;  it  be- 
comes the  symbol  of  our  death  and  resurrection  with 
.  Christ  In  baptism  we  are  buried  with  Jesus  in  His 
death,  and  rise  again  with  Him  that  we  may  walk  in 


THE  PAULINE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  HISTORY.       309 

newness  of  life  (Rom.  vi.  3,  4).  In  like  manner,  the 
Lord's  supper  expresses  the  mystical  union  of  the 
members  of  the  Church  with  Christ  and  with  one 
another;  they  are  one  loaf,  one  body  (i  Cor.  x.  17J. 
By  its  means  they  appropriate  and  assimilate  the  life 
of  Christ,  the  .substance  of  His  spiritual  being.  So  the 
Church  grows  both  without  and  within,  both  in  extent 
and  in  spiritual  power ;  for  it  is  not  only  the  creation 
of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  but,  if  we  may  so  speak,  His 
enlarged  existence  and  continued  life. 

n.  The  Old  Covenant  and  the  New. 

The  strong  antithesis  between  the  law  and  faith 
established  in  the  preceding  chapter,  tends  to  find 
its  solution,  .so  .soon  as  Paul  examines  it  from  the 
historical  standpoint.  The  apostle,  indeed,  could  not 
assume  an  entirely  negative  position  towards  Judaism. 
Not  only  did  he  believe  in  the  revelation  of  God  in 
the  Old  Testament,  but  he  further  admitted  the 
Divine  origin  of  the  law  itself  It  was  therefore  in- 
evitable that  he  should  formulate  the  relationship  of 
the  Old  and  New  Covenant  in  their  positive  aspect. 

Judaism,  so  regarded,  was  at  once  reduced  from 
its  position  as  the  supreme  religion  to  that  of  a  pre- 
paratory revelation.  The  old  covenant  between  God 
and  His  people  was  indeed  a  reality  ;  but  not  being 
an  end  in  itself,  it  could  not  be  final  (2  Cor.  iii.  7,  11). 
It  came  in  as  an  essential  but  transitional  stage  in 
the  progress  of  the  Divine  plan,  designed  to  prepare 
for  that  final  manifestation  of  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  Christ  to  which  it  bears  witness  (Rom.  iii.  21). 

This  preparation  has  its  positive  side  in  the  pri- 


310  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL, 

mordial  gift  of  tJie  promise,  while  it  has  another, 
essentially  negative,  in  the  intervention  and  operation 
of  the  laii'.  Between  faith  and  the  promise  there 
exists,  indeed,  a  full  resemblance  and  identity ;  for 
they  have  the  same  object,  viz.,  the  grace  of  God. 
The  promise  is  the  anticipation  of  faith  ;  and  faith  is 
the  realization  of  the  promise.  Hence  Paul's  strong 
assertion  that  no  other  justification  was  at  any  time 
possible  to  man  before  God,  except  justification  by 
faith, — that  this  was  the  primary  and  original  idea 
of  Divine  revelation,  distinctly  antecedent  to  the 
institution  of  the  law  itself  This  idea  he  readily 
discovers  contained  in  the  promise  made  to  the 
patriarch.  Abraham  believed  in  God  ;  and  this  faith 
was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness.  The  begin- 
ning of  salvation  by  faith  may  therefore  be  traced 
back  to  him  (Gal.  iii.  7).  It  was  to  faith  alone,  and 
to  faith  without  circumcision,  that  the  promise  was 
made  (Rom.  iv.  10).  Hence  the  capital  importance 
that  belongs  to  the  person  of  Abraham,  according 
to  Paul's  view,  in  the  order  of  Divine  revelation. 
Abraham's  experience  marks  the  point  where  the 
promise  enters  into  history — the  juncture  at  which 
the  justifying  grace  of  God  was  for  the  first  time 
declared  to  the  world.  So  the  name  of  the  patriarch 
stands  at  the  head  of  one  of  the  great  epochs  of 
religious  history.  This  promise  is  a  veritable  testa- 
ment, which  from  the  first  has  secured  the  right  of 
believers  to  the  paternal  inheritance, — a  testament 
that  no  subsequent  event  could  either  modify  or  set 
aside  (Gal.  iii.  15). 

While  the  promise  and  faith  are  thus  identical  in 
their  origin,  the  law  on  the  contrary  represents  an 
external  element,  radically  different  from  both.      It 


THE  PAULINE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  HISTORY.       311 


intervenes  between  the  two,  in  order  to  bring  about 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  ;  but  it  has  no  direct 
connexion  with  it.  Its  ministry  represents  a  great 
parenthesis  in  history  (TrapeuirjXdey).  Coming  430 
years  afterwards,  it  is  not  the  continuation  of  the 
promise  ;  for  in  that  case  we  should  have  to  admit 
that  God  had  modified  His  first  intention.  But  the 
word  of  God  cannot  be  annulled.  The  law,  therefore, 
has  an  object  quite  distinct  from  the  promise.  Its 
mission  solely  consists  in  realizing  and  multiplying 
sin  (Gal.  iii.  19  ;  Rom  v.  20)  ;  and  to  this  end  it  inter- 
vened between  the  promise  and  its  fulfilment,  and 
served  as  a  middle  term  and  mediator,  linking  together 
these  two  stages  of  history.  In  what  did  this  tem- 
porary mediation  consist?  In  the  fact  that  it  placed 
all  men  under  sin  and  the  curse,  keeping  them  under 
this  double  yoke  until  the  coming  of  Christ.  The 
realization  of  grace,  in  fact,  could  not  have  taken 
place  before  sin  had  been  realized  ;  and  it  was  in  ac- 
complishing this  end  that  the  law  worked  effectually 
to  prepare  for  the  advent  of  grace.  Such  was  its 
oflfice, — that  of  a  pedagogue,  and  temporary  mediator. 
Though  justification  does  not  come  through  the 
law,  and  although  the  law  produces  a  wholly  opposite 
result,  still,  it  is  not  contrary  either  to  the  promise  or 
to  faith  ;  it  has,  to  be  sure,  its  place  and  part  in  the 
Divine  plan  ;  it  represents  a  stage  of  condemnation 
interposed  between  promise  and  faith,  through  which 
man  has  to  pass  before  he  attains  the  full  conscious- 
ness of  his  reconciliation  with  God.  Thus,  at  the 
close  of  the  discussion,  the  apostle's  doctrine  recovers 
its  unity  of  thought,  for  a  time  impaired  ;  and  the  rdle 
of  the  Law  is  defined,  alike  in  its  essential  difference 
from  the  Gospel,  and  in  its  historical  relation  to  it. 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


Tlie  promise,  the  law,  faith — Abraham,  Moses,  Christ 
— indicate  the  three  successive  stages  in  the  Divine 
plan,  as  they  are  logically  connected  and  logically 
necessary  to  each  other. 

This  vicAv  differs  fundamentally  from  the  mode  in 
which  the  Jews  and  Jewish  Christians  persisted  in 
regarding  the  Old  Testament.  It  is,  indeed,  so  bold 
and  original,  that  .the  Christian  theology  of  following 
centuries  could  neither  understand  nor  reproduce  it. 
It  preserves  the  letter  of  the  old  covenant,  but  in- 
terprets it  by  the  spirit  of  the  new.  Paul  was  fully 
aware  that  the  Jew  could  not  of  himself  attain 
this  spiritual  standpoint.  "  A  veil  remains,"  he  says, 
"upon  the  old  covenant.  It  can  be  lifted  by  Christ 
alone.  But  to  this  day  the  Jews  read  Moses  without 
understanding  him."  They  did  not  perceive  the  sub- 
ordinate character  and  the  ephemeral  glory  of  Moses' 
ministry.  It  was  not  without  glory,  for  it  was  a 
manifestation  of  the  will  of  God  ;  but  its  glory  was 
fleeting,  because  the  ministry  itself  was  not  to  be 
permanent.  It  fades  and  disappears  before  a  glory 
that  is  surpassing  and  imperishable  (2  Cor,  iii.  6-15). 

III.  Adam  and  Christ;  or  the  Two  Ages 
OF  Humanity. 

Paul's  doctrine  hitherto  had  not  gone  beyond  the 
sacred,  limits  of  the  Old  Testament  ;  but  it  evidently 
tended  to  embrace  within  its  scope  the  whole  historical 
development  of  humanity,  completed  and  crowned  by 
the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

The  apostle  delights  to  compare  the  life  of  the  human 
race,  as  a  whole,  to  the  natural  course  of  the  individual 
life,  and  to  trace  in  the  first  the  various  phases  b.e-. 


THE  PAULINE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  HISTORY.       313 


longing  to  the  second.  Humanity  itself  begins  with 
childhood,  and  is  obliged  to  pass  through  a  slow  and 
painful  period  of  education  and  minority.  It  is 
certainly  an  heir,  but  an  heir  under  age,  who  has  to 
remain  in  ward  until  the  time  of  his  full  majority. 
The  promise  corresponds  to  the  paternal  testament ; 
the  guardian,  severe  and  inflexible,  is  the  law  which 
fulfils  its  office  until  the  time  appointed  by  the  father 
him.self.  The  heir  until  then  is  treated  as  a  slave.  It 
is  in  Christ  that  man  finally  gains  his  rights  of  sonship, 
and  attains  his  full  majority  {ifki^pw^a  tov  ■)(^p6vov). 
At  this  point,  the  period  of  childhood  and  youth 
.spent  in  subjection  ends  ;  and  the  second  phase  in 
human  life  begins,  that  of  mature  age,  characterized 
by  liberty  and  the  right  of  self-control  (Gal.  iv.  1-7). 

All  the  ideas,  and  all  the  Jewish  and  heathen  insti- 
tutions which  had  governed  humanity  before  the 
coming  of  Christ,  come  under  this  general  designa- 
tion :  d(T0€VTj  Kol  TTToyya  aToij^eia — things  n(diiucntar}\ 
prhnitive  elements,  by  whose  means  the  human  race 
was  formerly  educated,  but  which  are  no  longer  suited 
to  Christian  humanity  in  its  freedom  and  maturity 
(Gal.  iv.  9).  By  this  bold  conception  Paul  has  ranged 
Jewish  and  heathen  traditions  alike  under  the  same 
category  ;  and  in  .some  .sort  has  blended  them,  by 
subordinating  them  both  to  the  Go.spel. 

This  lofty  philosophy  of  history  is  still  better  ex- 
pressed in  the  parallel  between  the  tiw  Adatns,  in 
which  it  reaches  its  climax  (Rom.  v.  12-21  ;  i  Cor. 
XV.  45-49).  The  importance  of  these  two  pa.ssages  is 
not,  in  my  judgment,  fully  apprehended  by  those  who 
see  in  them  a  mere  typological  figure,  a  figure  more 
remarkable  perhaps  than  others,  but  still  serving  only 
to  illustrate  the  apostle's  discourse.      Placed  in  the 


;i4  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


logical  connexion  in  which  we  find  it,  this  parallel  is 
of  capital  importance  in  Paul's  system,  and  expresses 
one  of  his  finest  ideas. 

Adam  and  Christ  represent  the  two  great  periods 
in  the  life  of  humanity.  The  flesh  and  sin,  the  law 
and  death,  reign  over  the  first  ;  the  Spirit  and  faith, 
righteousness  and  life,  are  the  powers  that  prevail  in 
the  second.  The  first  Adam  was  earthl)-  and  carnal 
{^')(olKo<i  and  •^vyiKO'^).  All  his  descendants  have  been 
earthly  and  carnal,  have  lived  his  life  and  borne  his 
image.  With  Adam's  transgression,  sin  entered  into 
the  world ;  it  has  reigned  over  all  the  children  of  Adam, 
giving  them  over  to  death,  the  inevitable  wages  of  sin. 
Such  is  the  natural  development  of  this  period.  Its 
organic  bond  of  connexion  with  the  second  epoch, 
which  is  summed  up  in  Christ,  has  not  always  been 
fully  apprehended.  This  new  period  does  not  inter- 
vene abruptly,  as  though  it  were  obtruded  by  an  arbi- 
trary act ;  it  originates  in  the  first,  and  is  evolved  from 
it.  The  carnal  and  psychic  life  has  to  precede  the 
pneumatic  life,  giving  scope  for  its  due  development 
(l  Cor.  XV.  46).  The  second  period  does  not  begin, 
as  it  has  been  supposed,  with  the  .supernatural  birth 
of  Jesus  ;  it  may  even  be  asked  whether  in  Paul's 
theory  there  is  any  place  for  this  supernatural  birth.^ 

['  Paul  ascribes  to  Christ  a  unique  Divine  sonship  and  un- 
tainted holiness  :  at  the  same  time,  he  asserts  the  heredity  of 
sin,  and  the  solidarity  in  transgression  of  the  descendants  of 
Adam.  This  flagrant  contradiction  does  not  in  the  least  em- 
barrass him.  How  could  his  logical  mind  have  held  together 
these  contrary  beliefs,  unless  there  lay  behind  them  a  knowledge 
of  the  exceptional  character  of  the  birth  of  Jesus .''  That  there 
was  resen'e  upon  this  subject  in  the  first  generation  was  natural, 
especially  while  the  virgin  mother  lived,  "Xv<!'//V;^all  these  things 
in  her  heart."     See  Weiss's  Life  of  Christ  vol.  i.,  pp.  222-233.] 


THE  PAULISE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  HISTORY.       315 


The  position  that  this  fact  occupies  in  ecclesiastical 
theolog)',  is  filled  in  the  apostle's  system  by  that  of 
the  resurrection.  The  new  epoch  of  history  begins 
with  the  Saviour's  resurrection,  which  was  the  first 
manifestation  of  the  spiritual  life  on  earth.  The 
historical  life  of  Jesus  belongs,  in  reality,  to  the  first 
period.  Christ  Himself  was  also  a  descendant  of 
Adam, — horn  of  a  woninii,  coming  under  the  law,  with 
a  flesh  like  ours,  living  in  the  realm  of  sin  and  death, 
so  that  under  the  same  conditions  He  might  develop 
and  display  the  Divine  life  which  animated  Him. 

From  this  point  of  view,  everything  turns  upon  the 
fact  of  Christ's  actual  humanity.  The  second  Adam 
is  from  heaven,  it  is  true  ;  but  He  also  comes  forth 
from  the  bosom  of  humanity.  He  enters  the  human 
race  as  a  living  member  thereof,  and  becomes  for  it 
the  father  of  a  new  humanity.  'Y\\&  Spirit ^  righteous- 
ness, and  life  are  in  Him  not  merely  qualities,  but 
powers,  entering  into  history  and  unfolding  there 
like  the  sin  transmitted  by  descent  from  Adam. 
In  fact,  precisely  as  we  by  our  origin  are  in  coin- 
munion  with  Adam's  sin  and  participate  in  his  death, 
so  those  who  enter  into  communion  with  Christ  are 
partakers  of  His  life  and  righteousness.  If  there  is 
a  difference,  it  is  entirely  to  the  advantage  of  the 
second  Adam  :  a  single  sin  was  the  source  of  condem- 
nation for  the  many  ;  redemption,  on  the  contrary, 
starts  with  the  multitude  of  actual  sins  over  which 
Christ  triumphs,  and  in  the  midst  of  which  He  makes 
manifest,  through  His  obedience,  both  righteousness 
and  life  (Rom.  v.  15-17). 

Christianity,  though  supernatural  in  its  Divine 
cause,  does  not  make  any  abrupt  or  violent  entrance 
into  histor)',  so  as  to  interrupt  its  course.    It  manifests       \ 


\ 


5i6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


itself  in  due  time,  issuing  from  the  very  midst  of 
humanity,  where  God  at  the  appointed  hour  causes  the 
new  Hfe  to  appear.  The  idea  of  a  fall  of  the  human 
race  as  understood  by  Augustine,  has  no  logical  exis- 
tence in  Paul's  system.  Or,  at  any  rate,  if  the  apostle 
does  admit  a  failure,  a  fall  of  the  human  race  into  sin, 
the  idea  is  finally  absorbed  in  the  loftier  one  of  constant 
progress.  The  second  Adam  not  only  repairs  the 
fault  of  the  first  ;  He  brings  about  actual  progress, 
and  marks  out  a  higher  order  of  life.  The  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  completes  the  creation  of  humanity. 

IV.   ESCHATOLOGV. 

The  struggles  of  history  are  summed  up,  according 
to  Paul,  in  the  constant  antagonism  of  two  opposing 
principles,  deatJi  and  life.  This  great  drama  is  to 
have  its  denouement.  The  power  of  death  is  virtually 
already  broken  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
with  this  first  triumph  the  Pauline  eschatology  begins. 
This  doctrine  signifies  nothing  else  than  the  unfolding 
or  progressive  realization  of  all  the  individual,  social, 
and  cosmical  consequences  existing  in  germ  in  this 
fundamental  fact.  By  no  means  does  the  apostle 
limit  to  humanity  that  radical  transformation  an- 
nounced and  commenced  in  the  personal  triumph  of 
Jesus.  It  will  extend  to  every  celestial  sphere,  and 
throughout  physical  nature.  The  resurrection  of 
Christ  is  a  crisis  in  the  development  of  universal  life 
(Rom.  viii.  18-24). 

How  will  this  transformation  be  effected  ?  For 
the  external  mechanism  of  Jewish  eschatology  the 
apostle,  as  we  have  seen,  endeavoured  to  substitute 
a  moral  force.     It  would,  however,  be  a  misconception 


THE   PAULINE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  HISTORY.       317 

of  his  doctrine  to  attribute  to  him  the  modern  notion 
of  the  unh'mitcd  progress  of  history.  He  most  cer- 
tainly pictured  the  end  as  a  dramatic  finale,  brought 
about  by  God  at  the  moment  foreseen  in  His  designs. 
Though  he  may  have  relinquished  the  hope  of  being 
present  in  his  life-time  at  the  parousia  of  the  Lord, 
he  always  expected  this  great  event,  and  wished  those 
who  came  after  him  to  expect  it  (i  Cor.  xv.  22  ;  Phil, 
i.  10 ;  iii.  20).  There  is  no  contradiction,  though  it 
has  been  asserted,  between  this  ultimate  expectation 
and  the  hope  that  Paul  cherished  of  being  united 
by  death  immediately  to  Christ  and  God  (Phil.  i.  21  ; 
2  Cor.  V.  8).  Until  the  time  of  the  external  and 
historical  manifestation  of  the  Lord,  all  Christians, 
whether  living  or  dead,  have  their  glory  and  their 
life  hidden  in  God,  as  the  glory  of  Christ  Himself  is 
now  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  the  world  (Col.  iii.  1-4). 
The  time  of  the  Parousia  will  be  that  of  the  resur- 
rection. Then  the  principle  of  the  new  life  which  is 
in  Christ  will  reveal  its  full  power,  in  raising  up 
our  mortal  bodies  and  thus  completing  the  work  of 
redemption  (Rom.  viii.  23).  On  the  other  side,  Paul 
is  equally  decided  in  excluding  flesh  and  blood  from 
this  glorious  resurrection  (i  Cor.  xv.  50).  Evidently, 
on  his  principles,  the  flesh,  the  seat  and  organ  of  sin, 
must  be  destroyed.  An  essential  distinction,  there- 
fore, must  be  made  between  the  body  and  the  flesh. 
The  flesh  is  the  material  substance  of  the  body.  The 
body  is  the  essential  form  of  the  human  being.  From 
the  philosophical  point  of  view,  it  may  be  asked  how 
the  form  can  subsist  when  the  substance  which  filled 
it  has  disappeared  ?  Paul  did  not  concern  himself 
with  this  question.  He  strove  to  make  his  own 
meaning  clear ;  and  in  this  he  has  succeeded  admirably, 


31 8  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

by  his  comparison  of  the  resurrection  to  the  germina- 
tion of  a  grain  of  corn.  The  new  plant  is  not  com- 
posed of  the  same  matter ;  and  yet  the  type  remains, 
despite  the  change  of  substance.  The  new  body 
develops  organically  from  the  germ  which  gives  it 
birth.  There  is  therefore  a  real  connexion  between 
the  body  which  is  sown  in  corruption,  and  the  body 
I  which  is  raised  in  incorruption.  It  is  the  same,  and 
/  yet  a  new  body.  The  body,  in  fact,  represents  to 
^  Paul  a  Divine  idea  essential  and  necessary  to  the  full 
development  of  the  individual  life ;  it  is  even  the 
cause  or  principle  of  our  individuality.  This  Divine 
type  is  successively  realized  in  elements  of  a  diverse 
character  iaXkr]  crup^)  ;  like  the  soul  itself,  it  rises 
by  the  crisis  of  death  to  a  higher  state  of  life.  It 
becomes  a  spiritual  body,  inasmuch  as  the  irvevfia 
will  hereafter  animate  it,  as  the  '^v)(i]  does  at 
present. 

This  resurrection  will  be  the  time  of  the  Lord's  full 
triumph.  All  power  and  authority  will  yield  to  Him. 
His  enemies  will  fall  beneath  His  feet  (i  Cor.  xv. 
24-28).  Must  this  final  victory  be  regarded  as  an 
external  triumph  ?  Is  it  a  question  of  the  enforced 
submission  of  hostile  powers,  or  of  their  transforma- 
tion, conversion,  and  glorification  ?  To  some,  perhaps, 
the  first  conception  may  seem  the  more  probable  ;  yet 
when  Paul  declares  that  death  itself  shall  be  abolished 
for  ever,  it  seems  to  imply  that  evil  will  actually  cease 
to  exist.  The  apostle  says  nothing  of  the  final  fate 
reserved  for  the  wicked,  or  the  Devil.  But  the  idea  of 
an  eternal  damnation  evidently  lies  outside  the  logic 
of  his  doctrine,  which  would  rather  require  the  abso- 
lute annihilation  of  wicked  beings.  It  is  particularly 
to  be  observed  that  Paul  makes  no  reference  to  any 


THE  PAULINE  PfflLpSOrHY  OF  HISTORY.       319 


resurrection  of  the  wicked.^  Not  having  the  principle 
of  life  in  themselves,  they  cannot  live  again.  When 
this  complete  victory  of  good  over  evil  and  life  over 
death  is  accomplished,  Christ  will  then  restore  the 
kingdom  to  God  His  Father.  -  His  office  will  cease 
with  His  triumph  ;  He  will  efface  Himself  in  His 
turn  ;  and  God,  consummating  the  eternal  unity,  will 
be  all  in  all.  Such  is  the  final  and  glorious  end  of 
history. 

V.  Faith,  Hope,  Love. 

This  historical  development  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  remains  for  the  present  concentrated  and 
summed  up  in  the  Christian  consciousness.  The 
main  stages  in  this  progressive  life  are  there  repre- 
sented objectively  by  faith,  hope,  love.  "  These  three 
are,"  as  Calvin  has  well  said,  "  a  brief  .summary  of  the 
whole  of  Christianity." 

The  first  in  order  of  time  is  faith.  It  is  the  creative 
fact,  containing  the  germ  of  the  other  two.  Faith 
looks  back  towards  the  Divine  promise  and.  the  salva- 
tion accomplished  by  the  death  of  Christ.  There  is 
its  object  and  its  foundation.  But  while  faith  cast  its 
roots  into  the  past,  and  lives  in  the  present,  neither 


[ '  Then  we  must  put  out  of  court  Acts  xxiv.  1 5.  Paul  shared 
the  belief  of  his  people,  and  of  Jesiis  Himself,  in  a  general 
resurrection.  Comp.  Dan.  xii.  2  ;  Matt.  xxv.  32  ;  John  v.  28,  29. 
And  "  the  logic  of  his  doctrine  "  requires  it.  How  can  the  retri- 
bution of  2  Thess.  i.  6-10,  e.g.,  be  limited  to  the  wicked  who 
happen  to  be  alive  on  earth  at  Christ's  return  ?  and  how  other- 
wise are  we  to  understand  Rom.  ii.  5,  6,  or  2  Cor.  v.  10,  1 1  {the 
things  done  through  the  body, — whether  good  or  lad)  1] 


320  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


present  nor  past  can  suffice  it  ;  it  takes  possession  of 
the  future  and  becomes  hope. 

Faith  bears  hope  within  it,  just  as  the  past  and 
present  contain  the  future.  Hope,  in  truth,  is  only 
the  development  of  faith  ;  it  is  the  side  of  the  soul 
which  looks  toward  life  eternal.  The  profounder  the 
discord,  the  more  painful  the  contrast  that  exists 
between  our  spiritual  calling  as  believers  and  our 
earthly  condition,  between  our  aspirations  and  our 
trials,  by  so  much  the  more  vivid  and  mighty  is  the 
energy  with  which  hope  springs  out  of  faith.  "  In 
truth,"  says  the  apostle,  "  we  are  only  saved  by  hope." 
Our  existence  here  is  one  long  affliction,  a  continual 
bondage  (dXlyfrL^;,  a-revoxoipia),  in  which  the  life  of  the 
spirit  is  repressed  and  fretted  by  the  temptations, 
weaknesses,  and  sufferings  of  the  f^esh.  "  We  walk 
by  faith^  not  by  sight."  Hope  is  the  prospect  of 
faith. 

But  the  essential  and  abiding  disposition  of  the 
Christian  consciousness,  that  wherein  lies  its  eternal 
element,  and  which  in  this  character  enters  into  faith 
and  hope  alike,  is  /ove.  The  two  former  are  but 
temporary  phases  of  the  spiritual  life  ;  they  are  the 
virtues  of  travellers.  The  third  expresses  the  inner 
essence,  the  abiding  and  unchangeable  substance  of 
Christian  life.  Love  is  the  very  life  of  God. — "  Xow 
remain  these  three  virtues :  faith,  hope,  and  love  ; 
but  the  greatest  of  them  is  love"  (i  Cor.  xiii.  13). 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE   CHRISTIAN   PRINXIPLE   IN   THE  SPHERE  OF 
METAPHYSICS. 

Theology. 

ALL  human  thought,  like  all  life,  has  its  source  in 
God.  It  is  impossible  to  follow  out  any  idea 
for  long,  without  tracing  it  to  this  first  cause.  There 
was  no  need  for  Paul  to  set  himself  to  speculate,  with 
a  view  to  formulating  the  transcendental  principles 
of  his  theology\  His  mind,  exclusively  religious  as 
it  was,  rose  spontaneously  to  .God.  God  was  the 
beginning  and  the  end,  the  starting  point  and  goal  of 
his  meditations.  In  Him  is  the  first  and  ever-active 
source  of  that  great  unfolding  of  righteousness  and 
life,  in  history  and  in  the  human  understanding, 
which  we  have  just  surveyed.  This  cause  is  known 
as  grace. 

I.  Grace,  Predestination. 

'11    yapi'i,    17    Tpodeait    tov     Geov. 

It  is  with  a  sort  of  jealousy  that  Paul  claims  for 
God  alone  the  entire  and  Jinconditional  initiative  in  the 
work  of  redemption.     This  initiative  on  the  part  of 

3"  21 


322  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


God  springs  from  His  infinite  love  (Eph.  i.  3,  ff. ;  ii. 
4-7  ;  Rom.  V.  8  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  14  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  16). 

The  apostle,  as  we  have  already  said,  does  not 
admit  the  existence  in  God  of  that  antithesis  between 
His  love  and  His  righteousness  which  ecclesiastical 
theology  has  so  often  asserted.  God's  righteousness 
is  not  legal,  it  is  not  a  negative  virtue  such  as  could 
be  satisfied  by  the  punishment  of  evil.  The  Divine 
power  which  punishes  evil  is  called  in  Paul's  phraseo- 
logy the  wrath  of  God  (opji)  Qeov,  Rom.  i.  18  ;  ii.  8)- 
The  BiKaioavvT]  Qeov  is  a  positive  virtue  which  im- 
parts and  bestows  itself,  which  loses  itself  in  love. 
Righteousness,  in  this  aspect,  might  be  called  the 
actual  substance  of  God's  love  ;  and  Ipve  the  essential 
form  of  His  righteousness  (Rom.  iii.  21-26). 

The  love  of  God,  as  exercised  towards  sinful  men, 
receives  the  name  of  mercy  (eXeo?,  Rom.  ix.  15,  16, 
23  ;  Eph.  ii.  4  ;  I  Tim.  i.  2).  It  has  a  still  more 
definite  name  in  grace  (17  %"/3t?).  No  other  word 
occurs  oftencr  in  Paul's  writings.  It  designates  the 
love  of  God  in  action,  as  it  intervenes  definitely  and 
directly  in  the  destinies  of  humanity  in  order  to 
raise  it.  Grace,  therefore,  is  the  primary  source,  the 
one  absolute  cause  of  man's  salvation.  Since  Christ 
is  the  essential  means  by  which  the  grace  of  God  is 
realized,  it  is  also  called  \}s\'e.  grace  of  Christ  (Gal.  i.  6  ; 
2  Cor.  viii.  9 ;  2  Thess.  i.  12  ;  xupi^  Xpiarov,  or  %«/3t? 
eV  XptaTw).  As  it  depends  entirely  upon  God's  good 
pleasure,  it  is  further  called  evZoKia  (Eph.  i.  5  ;  Gal.  i. 
15  ;  I  Cor.  i.  21).  It  is  God,  in  fact,  who  is  our 
Saviour  (i  Tim.  i.  i  ;  iv.  10  ;  Tit.  i.  3  ;  i  Cor.  i.  21). 

This  act  of  love  by  which  God  saves  men,  is  a 
decree  of  His  will  superior  to  time,  an  eternal  decree 
(^ovXi)  rov  6e\rjp,aro<i  avrov,  Eph.  i.  11).     But  while 


THE  PAULINE  DOCTRINE   OF  GOD.  323 

love  inspires  redemption,  it  is  wisdom  which  conceives 
and  ordains  its  plan  (Eph.  iii.  10,  etc.  ;  Rom.  xi.  33). 
This  Divine  plan,  which  is  also  the  plan  of  history,  is 
only  fulfilled  and  revealed  by  degrees.  It  was  un- 
known and  concealed  from  human  wisdom  until  the 
appearance  of  Christ,  the  p2rfect  Revealer.  Hence 
Paul  calls  it  a  mystery  (fivar/jpioi/  rov  deX-qfiarot 
avTov,  Eph.  i.  9  ;  (To(f>iav  iv  fivaTTjploi  ttjv  cnroK€Kpvfi- 
H-^uTjy,  I  Cor.  ii.  7).  This  plan  is  simply  the  outflow 
of  the  eternal  grace  of  God  (Jva  evSei^tjTai  iv  roit 
aioioriv  TO  virep^dWov  7r\.ovTO<;  t?)?  j(^dpiTo<;  avrov, 
Eph.  ii.  7).  Grace  is  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end 
of  the  redemptive  work,  always  equally  sovereign  and 
equally  absolute.  But  as  soon  as  it  comes  to  be 
applied  practically  to  nations  and  to  individuals,  there 
arises  the  inevitable  question  of  the  relation  between 
this  absolute  action  on  God's  part  and  man's  free-will ; 
in  other  words,  the  terrible  question  of  predestination. 
Divine  grace  has  to  be  accepted  by  faith  ;  it  cannot 
be  realized  in  any  other  way.  Now  faith  depends 
upon  man  ;  and  Paul  makes  most  earnest  appeals  to 
the  responsibility  and  freedom  of  the  individual.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  good  found  in 
man  which  is  not  the  work  of  the  grace  of  God ;  so 
that  faith  itself,  to  begin  with,  exists  in  us  as  the  effect 
of  this  grace.  The  apostle  was  led  to  consider  human 
action  from  this  point  of  view,  quite  as  much  by  his 
own  experience  as  by  the  logic  of  his  belief.  He 
himself  was  the  conquest  of  that  higher  Power  which, 
from  the  moment  that  it  mastered  him  at  the  gates 
of  Damascus,  led  him  through  the  world  as  its  slave, 
fulfilling  in  and  through  him  its  work  upon  earth 
(2  Cor.  ii.  14;  V.  14;  I  Cor.  ix.  16;  xv.  10).  His 
apostolic  vocation  was  based  on  the  sense  that  he  was 


324  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


simply  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  Him  whom  he 
preached.  He  felt  himself  in  absolute  dependence 
upon  God.  This  feeling,  we  may  add,  is  essential  to 
all  deep  piety.  It  is  the  characteristic  of  piety  to 
renounce  itself,  to  refer  everything  to  God,  to  absorb 
the  individual  life  in  the  Divine  activity.  Predestina- 
tion, thus  understood,  is  a  normal  product  of  religious 
faith  ;  and  the  consciousness  of  the  former  is  never 
weakened  without  involving,  and  signalizing,  an  equal 
diminution  of  the  latter. 

It  will  not  be  surprising,  therefore,  to  find  this 
fundamental  antinomy  between  human  freedom  and 
the  Divine  action  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  (Matt.  xi. 
25;  xiii.  11;  xxii.  14);  it  pervades  the  New  Testa- 
ment writings  (i  Pet.  i.  2  ;  John  vi.  44,  and  passim  ; 
Acts  xiii.  48).  Paul  is  not  to  be  credited  with  having 
introduced  this  question,  but  only  with  having  made 
it  part  of  theology.  The  ninth  and  tenth  chapters 
of  Romans,  as  is  well  known,  contain  the  fullest 
declaration  of  the  apostle's  views  on  the  subject. 

PLxpositors  vainly  endeavour  to  eliminate  from  the 
ninth  chapter  the  idea  of  an  absolute  predestination. 
It  is  Paul's  express  object  to  impute  nothing  to  man 
which  can  in  any  sense  influence  or  determine  the 
Divine  will.  The  better  to  do  this,  he  is  not  afraid  of 
going  to  the  length  of  denying  all  independent  action 
on  man's  part  as  he  stands  before  God.  What  we  are 
and  what  we  do  has  so  little  power  to  compel  God, 
that  we  ever  are  and  do  it  only  by  the  will  of  God, 
He  chooses  Jacob  and  rejects  Esau,  without  regard  to 
their  personal  merit ;  He  hardens  whom  He  will ;  He 
shows  mercy  on  whom  it  pleases  Him.  This  thought 
has  yet  more  outspoken  expression  in  the  illustra- 
tion of  the  potter  and  the  clay,  by  which  superficia^l- 


THE  PAULINE  DOCTHlNE  OF  GOD.  325 

minds  are  too  easily  disturbed.'  What  is  the  meaning 
of  this  simile,  but  to  express  the  idea  of  the  sovereign 
independence  of  the  Divine  working,  the  supreme 
causality  of  that  absolute  Will  which  gives  account 
to  no  man,  and  from  which  no  man  has  the  right  to 
demand  account — a  philosophical  idea  so  natural  and 
inevitable,  that  every  thoughtful  mind  apprehends  it 
at  the  first  glance,  when  it  has  once  discarded  the 
assumption  of  a  moralistn  which  is  equally  superficial 
and  commonplace  ? 

But  the  worst  possible  misconception  of  the 
apostle's  doctrine  would  be  to  make  it  amount  to  a 
mechanical  determinism,  an  arbitrary  and  external 
decree,  controlling  the  actions  and  state  of  individuals 
by  anticipation.  He  devotes  as  much  energy  in  the 
tenth  chapter  to  asserting  man's  moral  responsibility 
as  he  has  just  shown  in  maintaining  the  absolute 
and  unconditional  character  of  the  Divine  working. 
We  now  find  salvation  and  condemnation  depending 
solely  on  the  faith  or  unbelief  of  the  individual.  We 
must  not  suppose  that  Paul  intended  in  this  way  to 
limit  the  application  of  what  he  had  before  asserted. 
No  ;  he  was  absolute  in  his  previous  affirmations,  and 
is  equally  so  in  these.  Nor  was  he,  as  I  think,  in  the 
slightest  degree  conscious  of  any  self-contradiction. 

He  does  not  write  these  three  chapters  from  a 
speculative  point  of  view ;  nor  is  it  the  dogmatic 
question  of  predestination  that  he  discusses.  His 
standpoint  is  that  of  history  ;  and  his  object  is  to 


'  Paul  invented  neither  the  comparison  nor  the  argument. 
I  am  not  sure  whether  both  did  not  recur  frequently  in  the 
rabbinical  discussions  of  the  time  ;  but  both  are  to  be  found  in 
the  Old  Testament  (comp.  Isai.  xlv.  9;  xxix.  16 ;  Jer.  xviii.  2-6). 


32*  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

solve  an  historical  question — viz.  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  and  the  coming  in  of  the  Gentiles.  Why  were 
the  Jews  rejected  ?  Because  they  sought  the  right- 
eousness of  works,  and  had  not  faith.  Why  were  the 
Gentiles  received  ?  Because  they  accepted  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.  That  is  the  first  and  subjective 
solution  of  the  problem,  amply  satisfactory  to  the  in- 
dividual conscience.  But  what  relation  does  the  faith 
of  the  one  and  the  unbelief  of  the  other  bear  severally 
to  the  Divine  plan  ?  Paul  answers  unhesitatingly  :  it 
is  fulfilled  by  both  alike.  The  unbelief  of  the  Jews 
exhibits  the  long-suffering  of  God,  and  His  eternal 
righteousness  ;  the  faith  of  the  Gentiles  manifests  the 
riches  of  His  mercy.  God  is  glorified  in  all  ;  and  man 
is  silenced.  This  is  the  second  and  objective  solution. 
Paul  sees  no  contradiction  between  the  two,  because 
he  will  not  conceive  of  one  apart  from  the  other,  and 
because,  in  his  view,  it  is  precisely  under  the  historical 
form  of  moral  responsibility  that  Divine  predestina- 
tion is  fulfilled,  human  freewill  having  no  scope 
outside  of  God's  plans.  History  is  the  outcome  both 
of  Divine  and  human  action  ;  it  is  the  same  reality, 
now  considered  from  man's  standpoint  and  now  from 
that  of  God.  The  truth  will  be  found  not  in  sepa- 
rating these  two  aspects  of  the  question,  nor  even 
in  placing  them  side  by  side,  but  in  blending  them 
together  at  every  point. 

II.  Christologv. 

'O  X/01O-TO9. 

The  eternal  plan  of  God  centres  in  the  Person  of 
the  Redeemer.  It  is  in  and  through  this  Person  that 
grace  becomes  an  active  power,  entering  into  the  world 


THE  PAULINE  DOCTRINE   OF  GOD.  327 

and  manifested  (7r€(f)avipo)Tai,  Rom.  iii.  21).     Paul's 
whole  doctrine  comes  to  a  head  in  his  Christology. 

Pauline  Christology  does  not  consist  either  in  a 
simple  transfer  of  the  Messianic  attributes  to  the 
Person  of  Jesus,  or  in  investing  that  Person  with 
metaphysical  ideas  borrowed  from  the  Alexandrian 
philosophy.  It  is  an  essentially  original  doctrine 
which  takes  its  rise  in  the  actual  fact  of  salvation,  and 
is  the  logical  outcome  of  that  doctrine  of  redemp- 
tion wherein  lies  the  very  core  of  Paulinism. 

The  Redeemer  must  be  really  man,  for  He  could 
only  save  humanity  by  partaking  of  its  nature  and 
becoming  an  actual  organic  member  thereof  On 
the  other  hand,  it  is  just  as  necessary  for  Him  to 
be  absolutely  distinct  from  sinful  humanity  ;  for  if 
He  belonged  to  it  simply  as  a  part  belongs  to  the 
whole,  He  Himself  would  have  the  same  need  of 
salvation,  and  could  not  bestow  it  on  others.  The 
human  sinlessness  of  Jesus  is,  therefore,  the  primary 
basis  of  Pauline  Christology.  Not  only  does  the 
apostle  always,  and  in  every  place,  take  it  for  granted, 
but  in  a  leading  passage  on  redemption  he  declares 
that  Christ  knew  no  sin  (2  Cor.  v.  2 1 ). 

It  is  true  that  after  the  words  tov  fiij  yvovTa 
ufiapTiav  the  apostle  adcfs  dfiapriav  iTroirja-ev.  M. 
Holsten  has  connected  this  passage  with  that  in 
Romans  viii.  3,  and  has  maintained  that  in  these 
two  passages  Paul  actually  attributes  sin  to  Christ, 
as  being  inherent  in  His  flesh.  This  interpretation 
is  the  logical  result  of  the  metaphysical  dualism  be- 
tween the  flesh  and  tht  spirit  which  this  theologian 
thinks  he  has  found  underlying  Paulinism.  The 
apostle,  he  says,  could  not  actually  invest  Christ 
with  a  flesh  like  ours,  without  by  that  very  means 


328  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

attributing  sin  to  Him.  He  does  so  very  definitely 
in  the  words  of  Romans,  viii.  3  :  Iv  oyLOLwiiarv  capKo<i 
afiapria<i  .  .  .  KareKptvev  ttjv  dfjuapTiav  eV  Trj  aapKi. 
If  sin  was  destroyed  and  condemned  in  the  flesh  of 
Jesus,  it  must  of  course  have  been  really  there.  This 
is  the  nerve  of  Paul's  whole  theory  of  redemption,  and 
by  cutting  it  you  bring  about  a  breach  of  continuity 
in  the  very  basis  of  his  doctrine :  an  incoherence 
which  enfeebles,  or  even  destroys  it. 

The  reasoning  just  quoted  is,  no  doubt,  very 
specious.  Let  us,  however,  follow  out  M.  Holsten's 
idea,  and  see  whether  it  is  true  to  the  logic  of  the 
Pauline  system  throughout.  Sin,  he  says,  exists  in 
Christ's  flesh  as  an  actual  power.  Did  not  this  sin 
make  Christ  a  sinner  ?  No,  answers  M.  Holsten  ;  for 
in  Him  the  dfiapria  never  became  jrapd^aaL'i  ;  this 
power  of  sin  never  brought  forth  transgression.  Why 
not?  we  inquire  further.  Christ  lived  under  the  law  ; 
and  is  it  not,  from  the  Pauline  point  of  view,  inevit- 
able that  the  law,  being  the  strength  of  sin,  wherever 
sin  is  latent  should  rouse  it  into  manifestation  and 
activity  ?  And  at  this  point  does  not  M.  Holsten  in 
his  turn  destroy  the  internal  logic  of  Paul's  doctrine  ? 
In  short,  either  sin  was  not  and  could  not  be  mani- 
fested in  Jesus  ;  and  in  that  case,  what  has  M.  Holsten 
discovered  beyond  that  which  the  apostle,  and  the 
Church  after  him,  call  ofioLcofia  aapKo<i  dfj,apTta<i? 
Or  else,  the  sin  inherent  in  the  flesh  of  Christ  was 
realized  in  His  life,  and  constituted  Him  a  sinner ; 
and  then  how  could  His  death  effect  the  redemption 
of  his  brethren  ?  We  are  thus  driven  on  either  hand 
into  a  logical  contradiction,  far  more  serious  than  that 
which  M.  Holsten  just  now  pointed  out. 

We  gain,  therefore,  no  further  light  upon  the  general 


THE  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD.  329 


Structure  of  the  Pauline  system,  by  interpreting  the 
two  passages  quoted  above  as  this  theologian  does  ; 
while,  from  the  standpoint  of  simple  grammatical 
exegesis,  we  involve  ourselves  in  very  serious  diffi- 
culties. Without  doubt  the  words  of  Romans  viii.  3, 
eV  6fioi(vfiaTi  aapKo<i  d/MapTia<{,  tend  to  assimilate  the 
flesh  of  Christ  to  our  sinful  flesh  ;  but  it  is  equally 
true  that  with  this  very  assimilation  the  term  ofiolcofxa 
asserts  an  essential  difference  ;  or  why  should  the 
apostle  have  used  this  expression,  instead  of  simply 
saying  iv  capKi  dfiapriaf;?  In  every  passage  where 
this  word  recurs  it  designates  an  approximate  identi- 
fication, never  an  absolute  material  identity  (comp. 
Rom.  i.  23  ;  vi.  5).  It  should  be  noticed,  finally,  in 
how  general  a  manner  the  sentence  in  question  ends. 
Paul  does  not  say,  KaTexpivev  ttjv  dfiapfriav  ev  aapxl 
avTov,  in  His  flesh  ;  but,  in  an  abstract  fashion,  cV  t^ 
aapKi,  in  the  flesh.  Christ's  flesh,  therefore,  only  re- 
presents in  a  general  manner  the  flesh  of  humanity. 
The  two  ideas  of  the  flesh  and  sin  are  always  cor- 
relative, but  still  dogmatically  distinct. 

The  analogous  interpretation  that  M.  Holsten 
gives  of  2  Corinthians  v.  21,  is  even  less  tenable.  The 
words  "God  made  sin  Him  who  did  not  know  sin," 
he  understands  in  a  material  sense,  as  though  Christ 
became  sin  by  taking  upon  Him  the  flesh  of  sin. 
This  obliges  M.  Holsten  to  refer  the  phrase  eTroirjaev 
d/xapTiav  to  the  mere  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  preceding  words,  rov  fiij  yvovra  dfiapriav,  to 
the  pre-existent  Christ — two  things  equally  impossible. 
In  short,  it  is  evident,  with  absolute  clearness,  that 
this  passage  refers  solely  to  the  Christ  of  history,  and 
that  the  words  iiroi-qaev  dfiapTiav  do  not  allude  to  the 
fact  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  but  to  the 


330  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

death  of  Jesus  upon  the  cross.  But  how  could  Christ 
at  that  moment  become  sin,  except  by  means  of  an 
ideal  substitution,  as  indeed  is  plainly  indicated  in 
the  words  virlp  i)ixoiv  ?  The  fact  of  this  substitution 
is  the  essential  basis  of  the  Pauline  theory.  And  the 
very  idea  of  substitution  implies  a  distinction  in  the 
two  terms,  for  otherwise  it  would  have  no  meaning. 
Redemption  consists  precisely  in  this,  that  God  sees 
in  Christ  that  which  is  in  us, — namely,  sin  ;  and  in  us 
that  which  is  in  Christ, — namely,  righteousness.  No 
doubt  this  is  a  logical  contradiction  ;  but  it  is  the 
Divine  contradiction  of  love.  The  logic  of  the  heart 
triumphs  over  that  of  the  intellect. 

The  personality  of  Christ,  then,  was  without  sin. 
But  this  definition  is  purely  negative.  Paul  has  given 
a  more  positive  description  of  His  Person  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  :  jevofievov  eV 
cnripfjiaTO'i  Aa^lB  Kara  adpKa,  opicrdevro'^  vlov  Oeov  ev 
Bvvdjxet  KUTu  irvev/j-a  djLCi)avvi]<i  e^  dvaardaewii  veKpwv 
(i.  3,  4).  There  is  no  reference  here  to  the  miraculous 
conception  of  Jesus  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
by  the  special  virtue  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Paul  is 
neither  combating  nor  confirming  the  narratives  of 
Luke  and  Matthew  ;  he  simply  ignores  them.  The 
apostle  in  this  passage  considers  the  Person  of  Jesus 
under  a  twofold  aspect, — as  regards  His  external 
material  frame,  and  His  inner  and  spiritual  nature. 
Jesus  owed  His  earthly  being  to  the  family  of  David. 
But  by  the  side  of  this  carnal  descent  Paul  points  out 
another,  higher  and  more  mysterious  origin — a  Divine 
descent  after  the  Spirit.  Just  as  the  flesh  formed  the 
substance  of  His  body,  so  the  spirit  of  holiness  formed 
the  substance  of  His  moral  being.  We  must  note 
again  the  words  iv  Bvvdfiei :  they  explain  themselves, 


THE  FAULTIER  DOCTK/NE   OF  GOD.  33! 

provided  they  have  as  their  antithesis  the  other  ex- 
pression tV  aadeveia.  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  from 
the  very  first ;  but  He  was  the  Son  of  God  in  weak- 
ness during  the  whole  of  His  earthly  life  (e^  aadeveia^ 
'i(TTavp(i)6r],  aWa  ^rj  ix  Svvdfieax;,  2  Cor.  xiii.  4).  The 
spirit  of  holiness  which  constituted  His  being  was 
restrained  within  the  prison  of  feeble  flesh.  But  when 
the  flesh  was  destroyed  on  the  cross,  Christ  was  then 
manifested,  and  at  His  resurrection  appeared  in  power 
as  the  Son  of  God  (6pia6evTo<;  .  .  .  iv  hwiifxei 
.  .  .  e^  ava(TTd<j€(i3<;  veKpwv).  Death  as  it  broke 
all  fleshly  bonds  and  destroyed  every  material  barrier, 
set  free  the  spirit,  the  very  essence  of  His  nature. 
From  that  moment  Christ  became  absolutely  spiritual. 
He  retains  a  body,  it  is  true  ;  but  it  is  a  spiritual  one, 
which,  so  far  from  interfering  with  the  action  of  the 
spirit,  merely  obeys  and  makes  it  manifest.  The 
reign  of  the  Redeemer  does  not  actually  begin  until 
the  resurrection.  The  risen  Christ  alone  is  the  per- 
fect Christ.  Then,  and  not  till  then.  He  appears  as 
the  second  Adam,  the  celestial   man  (i   Cor.  xv.  22, 

45-49)- 

But  this  new  designation  of  Christ  has  not  the 
importance  nor  the  metaphysical  significance  which 
many  theologians  attach  to  it ;  it  does  not  so  much 
indicate  the  essential  nature  of  Jesus,  as  His  part 
in  history  as  a  member  of  humanity.  The  words 
6  h^vjepo<i  avQpwno<i  e^  oupavov  (ver.  47)  do  not  in 
any  wise  imply  prc-existence ;  and  it  would  be  a 
serious  mistake  to  conclude  that  in  the  view  of  the 
apostle  the  pre-existence  of  Christ  was  that  of  the 
idea/  or  typical  man.  This  latter  idea  belongs  to 
rhilonism,  and  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  Pauline 
system.     There  is  a   radical  difference  between    the 


332  Tim  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


two  systems.  Philo  always  takes  a  purely  speculative 
view  ;  Paul  adheres  to  the  historical  one.  The  former 
would  say  that  the  ideal  man  is  the  first,  and  that 
the  psychical  man,  the  imperfect  reproduction  of  the 
Divine  type,  comes  afterwards  ;  the  latter,  on  the  con- 
trary, expressly  says  that  the  psychical  man  appears 
first,  and  then  the  spiritual  man.  The  }ievT^po<i 
dvdpcoTTO'i  of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks,  is  not 
the  pre-existent,  but  the  risen  Christ,  as  the  whole 
context  sufficiently  proves.  The  antithesis  asserted 
between  the  words  Ik  Trj<i  y?;?  '^oiKO'i  and  i^  ovpavov 
eirovpdvLO'i  has  no  bearing  on  the  idea  of  priority,  but 
solely  on  that  of  quality ;  a  fact  so  unmistakable, 
that  in  the  same  passage  Christians  themselves  are 
called  eTTOvpavioi  (comp.  Phil.  iii.  20).  Paul's  object 
is  not  to  establish  the  fact  of  Christ's  pre-existence  to 
Adam,  but  of  His  essentially  different  nature. 

Leaving,  therefore,  this  conception  of  the  heavenly 
man — which  is  wholly  misleading — we  will  return  to 
the  far  more  fruitful  idea  of  the  spirit  of  holiness,  the 
very  essence  of  Christ.  Paul  has  not  only  said  that 
the  Lord  is  a  life-giving  spirit  (irvevfia  ^(oottoiovv),  he 
goes  further,  and  adds, "  The  Lord  is  the  spirit  itself" 
(6  Se  KvpLo<i  TO  TJ-yevfid  iariv,  2  Cor.  iii.  17).  It  must 
not  be  asserted  that  in  Paul's  view  the  Lord  is  spirit 
because  He  has  become  a  life-giving  spirit  in  the 
soul  of  believers ;  He  only  became  a  principle  of 
immanent  life  in  them,  because  He  is  spirit  in  His 
very  essence.  Thus  we  reach  this  new  definition. 
Christ  is  the  Spirit  Himself  personified,  the  Divine 
Spirit  in  the  form  of  human  individuality. 

Here  we  reach  the  very  centre  of  the  Pauline 
Christology.  It  is  with  this  most  original  conception 
of  the  Divine  essence  of  Jesus  Christ  that  we  must 


THE  PAULINE  DOCTRLVE  OF  GOD.  333 


associate  the  fact  of  His  pre-existence.  Paul,  as  we 
have  seen,  docs  not  assert  the  pre-existence  of  the 
heavenly  man,  the  second  Adam  ;  but  he  does  assert 
that  of  the  Son  of  God  (Gal.  iv.  4  ;  Rom.,  viii.  32  ; 
I  Cor.  viii.  6  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  9).  Christ  was  in  God, 
antecedently  to  creation,  the  original  form  of  His 
existence  being  Divine  (eV  fjiopcfyfj  0eov  virdp^wv,  Phil, 
ii.  6  ;  Col.  i.  15).  This  pre-existence,  however,  is  not 
the  Divine  eternity,  and  we  are  still  far  from  the 
Trinitarian  formulae  of  Nica;a.  The  phrase  of  Colos- 
sians,  irpciijoToxo^  irda-rj'i  KTia€co<i,  even  implies  the 
opposite  ;  while  raising  Jesus  above  creation,  it  still 
links  Him  closely  to  it.  The  Person  of  Christ  is  not 
the  absolute ;  it  is  neither  the  supreme  cause,  nor  the 
final  end  of  the  universe.  His  very  existence,  accord- 
ing to  the  apostle,  seems  to  depend  on  that  of  the 
world  of  which  it  is  the  Divine  type,  the  perfect 
rt'siiine  {dvaKeifyaXai'JiaaaOat  rd  Trdvra  iv  tw  Xpiarw,^ 
Eph.  i.  10).  The  pre-existent  Christ,  like  the  his- 
torical Christ,  remains  essentially  Mediator.  His 
Person,  if  we  may  so  speak,  is  the  metaphysical  locus 
at  which  God  and  creation  meet 

How  did  Paul  represent  to  himself  this  pre- 
existence?  What  was  its  mode  ?  Was  it  a  personal, 
or  simply  an  ideal  existence  ?     The  apostle  is   not 


['  But  this,  as  the  entire  context  shows,  is  "the  (historical) 
Christ,"  the  centre  and  sum  of  the  Divine  plans  for  the  world. 
Nothing  is  said  here  of  the  pre-existent  Christ.  Is  not  eternity 
involved  in  the  p-op(f>y  ®eov  of  Phil.  ii.  6.''  If  the  existence  of 
the  historical  Christ  depends  on  that  of  the  created  world,  the 
existence  of  the  latter  depends  in  turn,  according  to  Paul's  logic 
— and  according  to  M.  Sabatier's — on  the  pre-existence  of  the 
Divine  Christ,  whom  Col.  i.  15-17  "  links"  indeed  "to  creation," 
but  with  an  infinite  disparity  of  nature.     Comp.  note  on  p.  243. 


334  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


very  explicit  on  the  point.  We  are  disposed  to  think 
that  his  doctrine  on  this  subject  halted  at  a  middle 
point,  somewhat  difficult  to  seize,  between  the  two 
opinions,  a  position  implying  something  less  than  the 
one  theory  and  more  than  the  other.  The  latter 
view  is  purely  abstract ;  and  the  Hebraic  genius 
neither  favoured  nor  understood  abstractions.  The 
former  might  seem  to  lend  itself  to  schemes  of  Divine 
and  mythological  genealogy ;  and  might  easily  be 
pushed  to  Docetic  consequences.  Paul  seems  to 
have  avoided  both  these  snares.  The  pre-historical 
action  of  Christ  is  blended  with  that  of  the  Divine 
Ili^ev/ia.  It  was  this  Divine  Spirit  which  appeared 
as  a  human  person  in  Christ ;  and  it  is  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  conceive  His  separate  pre-existence. 

However  that  may  be,  the  principle  of  the  Divine 
Sonship  of  Christ  is  precisely  that  Divine  Spirit  which 
constitutes  its  essence.  Paul  does  not  call  Jesus  the 
Son  of  God  because  he  has  found  in  Him  the  Messiah. 
The  term  v\o<i  rov  Seov  implies,  to  his  thinking,  some- 
thing very  diffiirent.  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  because, 
being  the  spirit  of  holiness,  He  proceeds  in  His 
essence  from  the  Divine  nature.  This  spirit  forms  an 
essential  bond  of  relationship  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  Thus  Paul  calls  Christ  in  a  very  special 
sense  God's  ozvu  Son  (ISiov  viov,  Rom.  viii.  32).  This 
is  because  Christ,  when  coming  to  dwell  in  our  souls, 
brings  thither  His  own  substance,  His  Spirit,  so  that 
we  also  in  our  turn  become  in  and  through  Him  sous 
of  God  (viol  Tov  Oeov),  co-heirs  with  Christ.  The 
Spirit  of  Jesus  is  therefore  called  the  Spirit  of  adop- 
tion {TTvevfia  vlo6e<Tia<i,  Rom.  viii.  1 5).  We  are  thus 
raised  to  the  same  plane  as  Christ,  and  become  in 
fact  His  bretJwen   (ft?  to  ^Ivai,  avTov  TrparoroKov  eu 


THE  PA V USE  DOCTRINE  OF  COD.  335 

TToWoi*?  d8e\!^ots^  Rom.  viii.  29).  This  dignity,  how- 
ever, is  with  us  purely  a  favour  ;  but  with  Him  a 
natural  right.  Wc  have  to  rise ;  He  had  to  stoop  ! 
Christ,  in  short,  is  God's  own  Son, — essentially  His. 
We  are,  and  shall  always  be  so  by  adoption  only. 

Lastly,  this  same  virtue  of  the  Spirit  which  is  in 
Christ,  is  the  foundation  of  His  sovereign  dominion 
(^Ir}<Tovi  Kvpio<i,  I  Cor.  xii.  3)  over  the  historical 
development  of  humanity.  This  sovereignty  is  not 
limited  to  the  work  of  redemption  ;  or  rather,  His 
work  itself  is  universal  in  scope,  and  links  itself  to 
creation  as  an  essential  stage  in  the  evolution  of  the 
world.  Hence  the  creation  is  nothing  more  than 
the  beginning  of  redemption  ;  and  the  latter  is  the 
completion  of  creation  ;  so  that  in  the  end  each  alike 
finds  its  place  within  the  sphere  of  Christ.  In  Him 
and  by  Him  God  created  all  things,  just  as  in  Him 
and  by  Him  He  reconciles  all  things  to  Himself 

The  starting-point  of  this  Christological  theory  is 
still  the  work  of  salvation.  The  cross  is  the  centre 
of  that  vast  circumference  which  includes  the  whole 
work  of  Christ.  The  sovereignty  of  the  Lord  coin- 
cides with  His  redemptive  mission,  and  is  only  of  the 
same  duration.  The  former  ceases  with  the  consum- 
mation of  the  latter.  Its  constant  tendency  therefore, 
if  I  may  venture  to  use  the  expression,  is  to  render 
itself  needless.  So  Paul  in  all  his  epistles  maintains 
a  strict  distinction  between  the  Lord  (Kvpio^)  and  the 
supreme  God.  Everything  has  to  be  subjected  to 
Christ,  except  God  ;  but  when  everything  shall  have 
been  subjected  to  Him,  the  Son  in  His  turn  will 
submit  himself  to  God  (koI  auro?  6  vi6<i).  He  will 
restore  the  kingdom  to  God  His  Father,  in  order  that 
God  may  be  all  in  all  (i  Cor.  xv.  28). 


336  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


) 


Christ's  office  will  then  terminate.  But  here  a  last 
question  presents  itself.  At  the  close  of  this  evolu- 
tion, what  will  be  the  final  and  natural  position  of  the 
Saviour?  Will  He  re-enter  humanity  as  the  eldest 
among  many  brethren,  or  will  He  return  to  the  bosom 
of  God  as  an  integral  member  of  the  Divinity  ?  The 
second  is  the  ecclesiastical  opinion  ;  the  first,  we 
believe,  is  Paul's  ;  at  least,  it  is  that  which  the  logic 
of  his  system  seems  to  require.  Paul,  in  fact,  is  not 
explicit  on  this  point.  Had  the  question  been  pre- 
sented to  him,  he  would  probably  have  dismissed 
it  as  idle.  It  could  not  really  occur,  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  Pauline  theology.  As  soon  as  we  reach 
the  final  stage,  the  moment  when  God  shall"  be  a// 
in  all,  it  seems  decidedly  superfluous  to  discuss  the 
categories  of  the  Divine  and  human  further,  since 
from  that  time  they  are  resolved  into  each  other.  On 
the  other  hand,  this  submission  of  Christ  to  God,  this 
resignation  into  the  Father's  hands,  cannot  possibly 
be  regarded  as  a  downfall  or  abasement  of  the  Son. 
On  the  contrary,  will  it  not  be  the  grandest  moment 
of  His  triumph  ?  He  will  remain  united  to  humanity, 
not  by  stooping  again  to  it,  but  by  its  elevation  to 
Himself 

The  Christological  conception  which  best  corre- 
sponds with  Paul's  ideas  still  seems  to  me  that  of 
the  God-ina7i.  The  human  and  Divine  elements  of 
His  nature  are  firmly  maintained  to  the  end.  How 
did  Paul  harmonize  them  ?  This  question  seems  not 
to  have  perplexed  him,  or  even  crossed  his  mind. 
He  carried  out  his  various  lines  of  thought  boldly, 
starting  with  the  great  fact  of  redemption,  without 
concerning  himself  with  the  metaphysical  problem 
which  they  involved.     The  basis  of  Paul's  system  was 


THE  PAULINE  DOCTRINE   OF  GOD.  537 

soteriological  and  experimental.  On  this  foundation 
he  had  slowly  raised  a  most  elaborate  mental  struc- 
ture. The  edifice  was  never  completed  ;  and  the 
efforts  since  made  by  ecclesiastical  theology  to  finish 
it  have  sufficiently  proved  the  apostle's  wisdom,  and 
the  impotence  of  speculation. 

III.  The  Father,  the  Lord,  the  Spirit. 

O  riaTJjp,  6  K.vpio<sy  TO  ayiov  Ilvevfia. 

Since  we  have  not  found  the  ecclesiastical  Chris- 
tology  in  Paul's  epistles,  neither  must  we  expect  to 
find  there  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.*  The  tri(U^ 
forming  the  title  of  this  chapter  is  very  different  from 
that  of  the  Xicene  formulary.  The  apostle,  who 
does  not  admit  the  equality  of  Christ  and  the  Father, 
seems  to  have  been  equally  without  the  notion  of  the 
personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  him  the  Spirit  is 
evidently  a  Divine  power  and  faculty,  not  yet  a  dis- 
tinct Person.  He  does,  however,  make  distinctions 
in  the  Divine  working,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a 
starting  point  for  subsequent  speculation  and  for 
ecclesiastical  metaphysics  :  17  ^apt?  tov  Kvpiov  ^Irjaov 
XpiaTOV,  Kal  1]  uyaTrr]  tov  Oeov,  Kal  1)  KOtvcovi'a  tov  tlyiov 
/Ti/eu^aT09  (2  Cor.  xiii.  14;  comp.  i  Cor.xii.  4-11).  This 
formula  simply  expresses  the  unity  and  sequence  of 


['  Supposing  Paul's  Trinitarianism  to  be  adequately  represented 
here  (and  this  will  be  disputed),  we  still  remember  that  Paul 
was  not  the  only,  nor  the  last,  exponent  of  New  Testament 
doctrine.  The  theology  of  the  Church  has  to  take  account  of 
John  as  well  as  Paul.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  essential  tri-unity 
of  God,  in  its  biblical  and  ecclesiastical  developments,  see  the 
profound  and  well-balanced  discussion  o&  Domer,  System  of 
Christian  Doctrine^  vol.  i.,  pp.  344-412.] 

22 


33S  TBE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

the  historical  development  of  salvation,  in  its  essential 
stages  :  the  love  of  the  Father  which  is  its  permanent 
cause,  the  grace  of  Jesus  the  Lord  which  makes  it 
manifest,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  who  gives  it  reality 
within  the  soul.  The  very  order  of  the  apostle's  words 
shows  how  far  he  was  from  any  metaphysical  design. 
Not  only  did  Paul's  theology  terminate  otherwise 
than  the  traditional  theology,  not  only  does  the 
dogma  of  the  Trinity  lie  outside  its  scope,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that,  instead  of  seeking  in  such  a  dogma 
his  final  conclusion  and  the  crown  of  his  system,  he 
has  found  both  in  the  absolute  idea  of  God. 


IV.  The  Conception  of  God. 

' O  &€o<;  TO.  Trdvra  iv  Traaiv. 

God  is  one  (el?  6eo9  o  TlaTrjp,  i  Cor.  viii.  6).  Of 
Him,  by  Him,  and  for  Him  are  all  things  (e'l  avrov 
KaX  hC  avTov  koI  ei?  aurov  to,  irdvra,  Rom.  xi.  36). 
He  is  the  beginning,  middle,  and  end  of  all  existence. 
In  Him  every  creature  has  its  source,  its  life,  and 
object.  It  was  the  constant  aim  of  the  apostle  to 
assert  this  absolute  and  supreme  causality  of  God  in 
man,  in  history,  and  in  the  universe.  This  idea  of 
the  absoluteness  of  God  is  the  real  metaphysical  basis 
of  salvation  by  grace,  justification  by  faith,  and  pre- 
destination :  God  does  everything  in  redemption,  as 
in  creation.  Again,  it  is  the  foundation  of  the  univer- 
salism  of  the  apostle  of  the  Gentile.s.  The  supreme, 
absolute  God  is  the  God  of  all.  "  Is  God  the  God  of 
the  Jews  ?  is  He  not  also  the  God  of  the  Gentiles  ?  " 
(Rom.  iii.  29.)  Lastly,  it  is  the  basis  of  his  religious 
philosophy  of  history,  as  sketched  in  the  epistle   to 


THE  PAULINE  DOCTF^INE  OF  GOD.  350 

the  Romans.  This  idea  of  the  absolute  unity  of  God, 
and  of  His  universal  and  permanent  activity,  is  just 
what  constitutes  the  unity  of  human  history  and 
brings  its  every  part  and  epoch  into  one  plan,  the 
plan  of  the  Divine  working. 

This  work  of  God  assumes  different  forms  ;  but  it 
is  neither  intermittent  nor  external ;  it  is  continuous 
and  immanent.  The  world  and  God  are  indeed 
essentially  distinct,  but  not  separate.  God  works 
upon,  and  in  the  world ;  He  permeates  and  trans- 
forms it  ;  He  reveals  Himself  in  it  ;  "  He  manifests  in 
the  world  His  eternal  power  and  His  Divinity  "  (Rom. 
i.  20).  God  reveals  Himself  still  more  fully  in  the 
redemption,  which  is  the  consequence  and  completion 
of  creation,  the  last  stage  of  progress  in  the  Divine 
activity.  Christ  is  the  medium  of  this  revelation.  In 
Him  it  is  concentred.  He  conveys,  and  communicates 
it.  God  has  poured  His  Godhead  into  Him  ;  He 
becomes  th^  plerotna  of  God,  as  the  Church  in  its  turn, 
embracing  in  its  extended  sphere  the  universe,  is  the 
pleroma  of  Christ  (Eph.  i.  23  ;  Col.  ii.  9).  Everything 
comes  from  God  ;  -everything  returns  to  Him.  The 
perfect  union  of  God  and  His  creation — that  is  the 
glorious  end  of  all  things. 

By  pushing  this  view  and  these  declarations  of  the 
apostle  to  their  strict  consequences  in  the  way  of 
formal  and  abstract  logic,  it  would  be  easy  to  deduce 
from  them  a  sort  of  dialectical  pantheism.  But  let 
us  remember  once  more,  that  Paul  never  indulged  in 
pure  speculation ;  his  reasonings  advanced  from  expe- 
rience to  principles,  but  were  never  wrought  out  by 
the  method  of  abstract  deduction.  God  docs  not  be- 
come lost  in  the  world  ;  the  world  is  transfigured  into 
the  Divine.      The  apostle's  metaphysics  arc  strictly 


340  THE  APOSTLE  PAVL. 


theistic.  While  he  does  not  distinguish  a  plurality  of 
Persons  in  God,  he  maintains  the  existence  in  Him 
of  an  inner  personal  life — that  of  the  •Spirit  which 
searches  the  depths  of  God  (i  Cor.  ii.  lo).  The  Spirit, 
therefore,  is  in  God  Himself,  as  in  us,  the  essential 
principle  of  consciousness,  knowledge,  and  personality. 
The  God  of  Paul  is  a  living  God  (i  Thess.  i.  9).  His 
tijue  name  is  that  which  Jesus  gave  Him  :  0e6<>  koX  6 
JJar/jp  (i  Cor.  viii.  6).  This  name  of  FATHER  is  the 
first  word,  and  the  last,  in  the  gospel  of  the  great 
apostle. 


APPENDIX   ON   THE    EPISTLES   TO 
TIMOTHY   AND   TITUS. 

By  Geo.  G.  Findlav,  B.A. 


THE  following  essay  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to  Timothy 
and  Titus '  is  appended  to  this  volume  on  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  Cleneral  Editor  of  the  series,  and  with  the 
ronsent,  freely  and  courteously  granted,  of  the  distinguished 
author,  \l.  A.  Sabatier.  Those  who  are  responsible  for  the 
English  translation  of  Lapotre  Paul  regard  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  as  having  a  good  right  to  bear  St.  Paul's  name,  and 
as  therefore  demanding  a  place  in  the  history  of  his  doctrine. 
Deprived  of  these  documents,  it  appears  to  us  that  the 
representation  of  the  apostle's  work  in  teaching  and  found- 
ing the  Church  is  incomplete,  ^^'e  are  no  longer  able  to 
trace  the  progress  of  his  thoughts,  and  the  unfolding  of  his 
plans  and  hopes  for  the  future  to  their  latest  stage.  The 
interpreters  who  reject  or  distrust  these  writings,  and  who 
believe  that  the  closing  verses  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
have  said  the  last  word  of  Paul's  history,  are  compelled  to  see 
his  sun  set  before  its  time ;  they  terminate  his  career  with 
a  sudden  and  mysterious  eclipse.  The  pensive  hours  of 
evening,  the  broken  yet  touching  accents  of  old  age,  the 
final  directions  and  warnings  to  his  children  of  the  father 
who  knows  that  it  is  time  to  set  his  house  in  order  and  to 
resign  his  earthly  charge,  the  dying  testimony  and  the  last 
farewell — these  pathetic  elements  of  the  drama  of  life  are 
wanting  to  the  image  of  the  great  apostle,  if  the  letters  to 
Timothy  and  Titus  are  not  truly  his  own.  We  do  not  say 
this  by  way  of  plea  for  their  authenticity,  nor  in  order  to 
enlist  a  sentimental  pre-judgment  in  their  favour,   but  in 

*  This  essay  is  in  substance  a  reprint  of  the  articles  on  "St.  Paul 
and  the  Pastoral  Epistles,"  and  "  Doctrine  and  Church  in  the  Pastoral 
Kpistles,"  that  appeared  in  the  Loudon  Quarterly  RcvirM  for  Octol)er, 
I  §89  and  1890. 

3^3 


344  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


justification  of  our  attempt,  which  possibly  may  seem  invi- 
dious or  presumptuous,  to  supplement  the  masterly  work 
here  presented  to  the  I^nglish  public.  Convinced  of  the 
genuineness  and  the  importance  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles, 
and  regretting  that  our  author  is  obliged  to  leave  their  place 
vacant  in  his  admirable  picture,  we  thought  it  right  to  en- 
deavour, with  however  inferior  art,  to  fill  in  the  unoccupied 
space  in  the  canvas.  We  desire,  in  effect,  to  add  a  fourth, 
completing  section  to  the  analysis  of  "  Paul's  theological 
system"  given  above  (Book  Y.),  under  this  title  :  The 
Christiaii  Principle  in  the  Sphere  pf  Ethics  and  Church  Life 
( The  Care  of  Souls). 

The  Appendix  necessarily  assumes  a  polemical  shape. 
We  are  compelled  to  vindicate,  while  we  expound  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  But  the  writer  has  directed  his  apologetic 
to  a  practical  and  constructive  aim.  Indeed  no  defence  of 
documents  such  as  these  can  be  satisfactory,  or  thoroughly 
valid,  which  does  not  disclose  in  them  a  lesson  for  all  time,  a 
message  and  doctrine  worthy  of  the  apostle  of  the  (ientiles, 
basing  itself  by  its  intrinsic  character  and  import  upon  his 
fundamental  teaching  and  the  mission  of  his  life. 

I.  The  P.\storal  Epistles  in  Modern  Criticism. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles  were  the  first  of  the  writings  bear- 
ing St.  Paul's  name  to  be  denounced  by  modern  historical 
scepticism.  They  are  the  last  which  it  seems  likely  to 
release  from  its  grasp.  Schleiermacher,  from  whom  the 
theology  of  the  present  century  has  received  in  so  many 
directions  its  initiative,  in  the  year  1807  definitely  raised 
this  critical  problem.  He  attempted  to  show  on  internal 
grounds  that  the  "so  called"  First  Epistle  of  Paul  to 
Timothy  was  in  reality  a  compilation  from  2  Timothy  and 
Titus,  worked  over  and  adapted  to  post-apostolic  times. 
Eichhorn,  in  his  Introduction^  and  de  Wette  still  more 
decidedly  in  his  Commentary,  extended  the  same  doubts 
to  all  three  epistles.    These  attacks,  were,  however,  of  a 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  345 


desultory  and  negative  character,  and  left  the  origin  of  the 
documents  unexplained.  They  proved  to  be  the  prelude 
to  a  far  more  dangerous  assault,  directed  against  the  histo- 
rical character  and  claims  of  the  New  Testament  generally, 
which  was  commenced  in  the  year  1835  by  the  epoch- 
making  work  of  F.  C.  Baur,  of  Tiibingen,  on  the  "  so  called 
Pastoral  Epistles  of  the  apostle  Paul."  In  this  discussion 
Baur  first  developed  his  peculiar  critical  method,  and  laid 
down  the  principles  on  which  the  Tendency  School  has 
based  its  reconstruction  of  the  history  of  the  Primitive 
Church  and  the  growth  of  the  New  Testament  canon. 

The  preface  of  this  manifesto  contains  the  following 
pregnant  sentences: 

"I,  at  least,  cannot  see  how  the  question  [of  authorship]  is  to  be 
decided  otherwise  than  in  relation  to  the  historical  phenomena  of  the 
entire  period  in  which  these  letters  originated — that  is  to  say,  in  the 
light  of  the  history  of  the  first  two  centuries.  It  is  only  after  such 
inquiry  that  we  shall  be  in  a  position  to  show  where,  in  the  course  of 
these  phenomena,  the  place  of  the  writings  in  question  is  to  be  found." 

The  Tubingen  master  found  in  the  Pastoral  Epistles  a 
product  of  second-century  orthodoxy,  written  under  cover 
of  the  apostle's  name,  as  polemical  tractates  against  the 
Gnosticism  of  the  time,  and  in  the  interest  of  catholic 
Church  union  and  ecclesiastical  discipline.  From  the  stand- 
point gained  in  this  essay,  Baur  proceeded  to  attack  the 
other  Pauline  writings,  leaving  at  last  only  the  four  major 
epistles  standing  as  authentic  remains  of  the  veritable  Paul. 

The  defenders  of  the  New  Testament  have  by  this  time 
driven  back  the  Tubingen  assault  along  the  whole  line. 
Baur's  successors  in  Germany  have,  in  almost  every  instance, 
retreated  from  the  extreme  positions  of  their  leader  ;  and  the 
genuineness  of  all  the  thirteen  epistles,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Pastorals  and  Ephesians,  is  admitted  by  one  or  other 
of  the  leading  negative  critics,  ^^'ith  these  writers  we  must 
range,  on  this  particular  question,  other  scholars  of  emi- 
nence, who  are  undoubtedly  on  the  side  of  faith  in  Jesus  and 


346  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


the  Resurrection,  such  as  Harnack  '  of  Germany,  and  the 
lamented  Dr.  Edwin  Hatch,-  of  Oxford,  along  with  Professor 
Sabatier,-'  who  decline  to  accept  the  letters  to  Timothy  and 
Titus  in  their  canonical  form  as  genuine  writings  of  the 
apostle  Paul.  * 

Those  who  hold  by  the  Pauline  authorship  are  therefore 
called  upon  to  give  some  reason  for  their  faith.  And  this 
is  the  more  needful  in  view  of  the  revived  interest  visible 
on  many  sides  in  questions  of  Church  history  and  polity, 
which  cannot  fail  to  bring  these  documents  into  the  front 
of  the  field  of  controversy.  We  want  to  be  sure  of  the 
ground  on  which  we  stand.  Of  what  practical  use  are  these 
epistles  to  us,  if  it  remain  doubtful  whether  they  are  the 
genuine  expression  of  St.  Paul's  mind  ;  or  whether  they  have 
not  been  imposed  on  th,e  Church  by  some  clever  ecclesiastic 
of  the  second  century,  and  embody  in  reality  the  ideas  and 
aims  prevailing  in  the  Church  at  that  very  different  epoch  ? 
The  question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pastorals  is  vital 
to  our  entire  conception  of  the  apostolic  Church.  It  was 
essential  to  Baur's  theory  of  early  Christianity  that  their 
spuriousness  should  first  of  all  be  demonstrated.  If  they 
can  be  proved  genuine,  the  whole  Tiibingen  construction 
falls  to  the  ground.  On  the  other  hand,  let  these  epistles 
be  struck  out  of  the  canon,  and  while  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel  remain  unimpaired,  we  should  still 
feel  ourselves  greatly  impoverished,  missing  not  only  some 
that  we  have  counted  amongst  the  most  precious  passages 
of  inspired  Scripture,  but  robbed  of  much  that  has  helped 
(as  we  thought)  to  form  our  view  of  the  life  and  growth,  the 
difficulties  and  temptations  of  the  early  Church — of  much, 
too,  of  precious  import  bearing  on  the  history  and  inner 
mind  of  the  great  apostle. 

*  See  the  Expositor,  3rd  series,  v.  335,  note  i. 

^  Article  "Pastoral  Epist/es,"  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britanuica, 
ninth  edition. 

^  See  pp.  263-272  above;  also  article  "  Pastorales, '"  in  the  EiiO'' 
clop^dit  d(s  Sdetices  re/f^ifuscs. 


TrIE  PAS;T0RAI.  EPISTLES,  347 

Great  as  our  loss  would  be,  we  must  still  submit  to  it,  if 

the  Church  proves  to  have  been  deceived  in  these  long 
treasured  writings.  "  We  can  do  nothing  against  the  truth." 
To  foreclose  such  cjuestions  and  forbid  inquiry  into  the 
authenticity  and  historical  worth  of  canonical  writings  on 
dogmatic  grounds  or  on  the  authority  of  ecclesiastical  tra- 
dition, is  a  useless  and,  for  Protestant  Churches,  a  suicidal 
policy.  The  Bible  has  nothing  to  fear  from  honest  criticism. 
In  the  case  of  these  epistles,  we  are  persuaded  that  it  con- 
cerns historical  truth  even  more  than  Christian  orthodo.xy, 
that  they  should  be  cleared  from  the  suspicions  cherished 
against  them. 

The  interpretation  of  these  books,  it  is  to  be  regretted, 
has  fallen  behind  that  of  the  other  epistles  of  St.  Paul.  A 
more  complete  and  penetrating  exegesis  would,  we  imagine, 
set  some  controverted  .passages  in  a  different  light,  and 
would  reveal  connexion  of  thought  and  historical  relevance 
in  what  often  seems  pointless  and  obscure.  Bishop  Ellicott's 
grammatical  method,  admirable  and  indispensable  within 
its  limits,  scarcely  touches  the  crucial  difficulties  of  the 
subject.  Huther's  industry  and  good  sense  are  only  a 
partial  substitute  for  the  exegetical  genius  of  Meyer,'  whose 
work  unfortunately  terminated  with  the  epistles  to  Colos- 
sians  and  Philemon.  English  students  miss  still  more  in 
this  obscure  field  the  help  of  the  broad  and  luminous 
scholarship  and  the  fine  literary  tact  of  Bishop  Lightfoot, 
— for  whose  guidance,  alas  1  we  must  look  no  more. 

Dr.  W^ace  has  supplied  a  powerful  vindication  of  the 
Pastorals  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Speaker's  Commentary, 
and  Canon  Farrar  in  the  appendix  to  his  St.  Paul;  \)x. 
Salmon  in  his  masterly  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament, 
and,  finally,  Dr.  Plummer,  in  his  excellent  and  most  useful 


'  This  great  critic  has  rangetl  himself  amongst  the  opponents  of 
authenticity.  His  "  remark  "  on  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus 
appended  to  sect.  I  of  the  "Introduction"  to  his  Commentai-j-  on 
l-vorptvns,  aniounts,  however,  to  little  more  than  an  i/>se  dixit. 


348  THE  AFOSTLE  PAUL, 

commentary  in  the  "  Expositor's  Bible,"  have  carried  on 
the  defence  very  effectively.  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  on  the 
other  side,  in  the  last  edition  of  his  Introduction  to  the  Neiv 
Testament,  gives  a  complete  and  lucid  summary  of  the  nega- 
tive arguments.  In  Germany,  \\'iesinger,  the  collaborateur 
of  Olshausen,  and  Hofmann,  amongst  other  defenders  of 
the  Pauline  authenticity,  have  grappled  with  the  subject  in 
its  modern  aspects  with  conspicuous  ability.  Hofmann's 
exposition,^  though  marred  by  his  caprice  and  super- 
subtlety,  has  materially  advanced  the  study  of  these  writings. 
Dr.  Ernst  Kiihl  has  likewise  put  us  under  great  obligations 
by  his  keen  and  judicial  essay  on  the  "  Church  Order  of 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  "  {Die  Gevieinde-ordnung  in  den  Pas- 
toral-brief en.     Berlin,  1885). 

Holtzmann's  recent  work  on  the  subject  ^  contains  the 
most  full  and  authoritative  treatment  which  it  has  received 
from  the  opponents  of  authenticity.  He  maintains,  follow- 
ing Baur,  that  the  letters  originated  with  the  orthodox 
Church  party  in  Rome  about  the  year  140  of  our  Lord. 
Holtzmann,  however,  lays  less  emphasis  on  their  anti- 
heretical  and  more  upon  their  "  catholicizing "  tendency 
than  did  his  predecessors,  regarding  it  as  the  principal 
object  of  these  writings  to  confirm  Church  authority  and 
surround  it  with  an  apostolic  halo.  Connected  with  this 
purpose,  in  his  view,  was  the  endeavour  of  the  unknown 
author  to  strike  a  blow  at  Gnostic  heresy,  in  the  form 
that  it  was  assuming  toward  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury.    Pfleiderer,  in  his  great  critical  work  on  the  Chris- 

*  Die  heilige  Schrift  neuen  Testatuentes  zusanimenhiingend  unter- 
siicht.  Sechster  Theil  {Timotheiis  u.  Titus).  Nordlingen,  1874.  Hof- 
mann appears  to  unusual  advantage  in  this  volume,  where  he  is  free 
from  the  rivalry  of  Meyer. 

-  Die  Pastoralbriefe,  kritisch  und exegetisch  behandelt.  Leipzig,  1 880. 
The  exegetical  part  of  the  book  does  not  strike  one  as  containing  much 
that  is  original  or  valuable.  The  "  critical  behandling  "  has  taken  the 
life  out  of  Holtzmann's  exegesis.  It  reads  like  a  post  mortem  inquiry. 
So  soon  as  the  epistles  are  detached  from  the  personality  of  St.  Paul, 
th«ir  living  purpose  and  meaning  are  gone, 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  34^ 


tian  origins,  Das  Urchrisienthum,  returns  to  Baur's  opinion 
as  to  the  date  of  the  epistles ;  in  the  Paulinismus  he  had 
referred  them  to  a  somewhat  earlier  period.  The  picture 
which  the  epistles  give  of  Church  organization  and  of  here- 
tical teaching — a  confused  representation,  as  Holtzmann 
regards  it — he  attributes  to  the  attempt  of  the  falsarius  to 
combine  the  notions  of  his  own  day  with  what  he  imagined 
proper  to  St.  Paul. 

This  theory,  it  will  be  seen,  makes  decided  concessions 
to  the  defensive  criticism.  It  admits  a  largd  element  of 
Pauline  verisimilitude  previously  denied.^  And  it  ascribes 
to  the  supposed  ecclesiastical  romancer  a  conscious,  and 
largely  successful,  reproduction  of  the  social  and  mental 
conditions  of  a  bygone  age,  as  well  as  of  the  dialect  and 
manner  of  the  apostle — a  kind  of  success,  so  far  as  we  know, 
quite  unexampled  and  foreign  to  the  literary  habits  and 
attainments  of  early  Christian  writers."^ 

Holtzmann  is  a  veteran  critic,  and  master  of  many  legions 
in  the  field  of  biblical  scholarship.  In  this  work  he  brings 
them  all  into  the  battle.  In  his  five  hundred  closely  printed 
pages  of  multifarious  learning  and  keen  analysis,  the  fruit 

*  Kenan's  account  of  the  Pastorals  {Vcglist  chretitnne,  pp.  95-106, 
and  Saint  Paid,  pp.  xxiii.-lii.)  indicates  a  certain  reaction  against  the 
extreme  rigour  of  the  Bauriau  hypothesis.  M.  Kenan's  literary  con- 
science saves  him  from  endowing  the  charges  oi  fiebleitess  and  vapidity 
which  it  suits  the  Tendency  critics  to  make  against  these  writings. 
"Some  passages  of  these  letters,"  he  says,  "are  so  beautiful,  that  we 
cannot  help  asking  whether  the  forger  had  not  in  his  hands  some 
authentic  notes  of  St.  Paul,  which  he  incorporated  in  his  apocrj-phal 
composition."  Again  he  writes,  "What  runs  through  the  whole  is 
admirable  practical  good  sense.  .  .  .  The  piety  our  author  advo- 
cates is  wholly  spiritual.  You  can  perceive  the  influence  of  St.  Paul, 
.  .  .  a  sort  of  sobriety  in  mysticism,  a  great  fund  of  rectitude  and 
sincerity."  This  in  ^  forger  \  In  M.  Kenan  paradox  often  vei^es 
upon  jest.     Kenan  dates  the  epistles  about  too  A.D. 

*  Contrast  this  extraordinary  skill  of  the  supposed  falsarius  in 
mimicking  the  style,  sentiment,  and  doctrine  of  Paul  with  the  bungling 
failure  of  his  attempt,  on  the  "critical"  hypothesis,  to  fit  his  com- 
positions into  the  historical  framework  given  him  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  Who  ever  heard  of  a  forger  at  once  so  clever  and  so  stupid 
—50  adroit  and  maladroit? 


THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


of  immense  industry,  the  subject  is  exhausted.  Not  a  point 
is  missed  ;  not  a  single  contribution  to  the  study  of  the 
question,  of  any  moment,  seems  to  be  overlooked.  Every- 
thing is  said  that  criticism  can  possibly  say.  It  is  well  if 
our  poor  little  letters  are  not  crushed  by  the  mere  weight  of 
the  ponderous  indictment  I  May  we  dare  to  say  that  we 
rise  from  a  repeated  perusal  of  this  able  and  exhaustive 
book  more  convinced  than  ever  that  Paul,  and  no  other,  wrote 
the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  from  the  first  page  to  the 
last  ?  Holtzmann's  work  is  admirable  as  a  critical  tour  de 
force.  If  we  might  forget  the  conditions  of  historical  and 
literary  construction,  and  imagine  ourselves  in  a  world 
peopled  by  vocabularies  and  phrase-books,  where  sentences 
come  together  and  works  of  literature  are  composed  by 
some  kind  of  elective  affinity  or  fortuitous  concourse  of 
verbal  atoms,  then  such  theories  would  be  plausible.  Their 
condemnation  is  that,  as  M.  Sabatier  says  (p.  234),  they 
are  so  "  little  embarrassed  by  their  impracticability."  Try 
as  we  will,  we  cannot  form  any  coherent  mental  image  of 
such  a  writer  as  the  Tendency  School  would  have  us  ima- 
gine for  these  letters. 

Indeed  Holtzmann's  hypothesis  of  the  Pastorals,  like 
some  other  of  his  critical  reconstructions,  is  its  own  re- 
futation. It  breaks  down  by  its  very  ingenuity.  No 
fabricator  of  the  second  century  was  clever  enough  to 
need  all  this  ado  to  find  him  out.  It  would  have  required 
a  skill  surpassing  that  of  the  detectives  to  contrive  a  plot 
that  still  seems  to  baffle  them.  The  cunning  interpolations 
and  imitations,  the  deft  touches  of  Pauline  colouring,  the 
veiled  allusions  and  nicely  calculated  introduction  of  matter 
relevant  to  later  times  which  the  critics  with  incredible 
acuteness  have  discovered,  the  deceptive  air  of  truthfulness 
and  unstudied  freshness  which  the  pseudo-Paul  has  thrown 
over  his  work — all  this  belongs  to  the  literary  artifice  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Baur  and  his  disciples  have  projected 
their  own  subtlety  and  the  accomplishments  of  their  cul- 


The  pastoral  epistles.  351 

tured  professional  circles  into  the  Christian  mind  of  the 
second  century,  to  which  such  aptitudes  were  wholly  want- 
ing. At  the  same  time  they  impute  to  that  mind  a  readi- 
ness to  deceive  and  to  be  deceived,  which  is  contrary  to 
what  we  know  of  its  character.  The  early  Church  neither 
could  invent  such  documents  as  these,  nor  would  have 
entertained  them,  so  invented,  without  grave  questioning. 
For  specimens  of  fictitious  early  Christian  literature,  we 
have  the  pseudo-Clementine  books,  the  Apocryphal  Gospels, 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans ;  and  who  would  say  that 
these  writings  approach  in  any  degree  to  the  vraisemblance 
of  our  epistles — or  to  their  success? 

The  external  attestation  of  these  epistles  is  met  in  an 
evasive  and  unsatisfactory  way  by  the  Tendency  critics. 
They  habitually  minimize  the  force  of  patristic  evidence. 
Holtzmann  devotes  to  this  branch  of  the  subject  but  nine 
out  of  his  282  pages  of  criticism,  reserving  it  for  a  con- 
cluding subsection  of  his  argument  (pp.  257-266).  It 
would  lie  impossible  to  express  more  decidedly  than  Holtz- 
mann does  in  this  way,  one's  contempt  for  the  judgment  of 
the  great  Church  leaders  who  established  the  New  Testa- 
ment canon.  Weiss's  statement,  that  "  the  Pastoral  epistles 
are  as  strongly  attested  as  any  writings  of  Paul,"  remains 
unshaken.  Holtzmann  himself  admits  it  to  be  nearer  the 
truth  than  the  hardy  assertion  of  Baur,  to  the  effect  that 
they  are  supported  by  "  no  testimony  of  any  weight  earlier 
than  the  end  of  the  second  century."  How  Holtzmann 
reconciles  their  acknowledged  use  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius 
and  Polycarp  with  the  date  he  assigns  to  them,  we  are  at  a 
loss  to  understand.  Marcion,  with  Tatian  (in  regard  to  i 
and  2  Timothy),  and  some  other  (inostics,  alone  dissented 
from  the  Church  of  the  second  century  in  this  matter;  but 
Marcion  must  have  ceased  to  be  a  Marcionite,  if  he  had 
given  a  place  in  his  Apostolicon  to  these  writings.  Now 
that  it  is  demonstrated  that  Marcions  Luke  -  the  only 
Gospel  he  accepted — was  a  mutilated  edition  of  the  canoni 


352  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

cal  Third  GospeV  his  name  ceases  to  be  of  weight  in  ques- 
tions of  canonicity.  TertuUian's  reference  to  Marcion  on 
this  point  impHes  that  Marcion  kneia  these  books  and 
excluded  them  from  the  list  of  Pauhne  epistles,  where  they 
already  held  a  recognised  place.  If  Tertullian  is  to  be 
trusted,  we  can  therefore  trace  as  far  back  as  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  not  the  origin,  but  the  general  recog- 
nition and  ecclesiastical  use  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  ;  and  this 
involves  their  previous  diffusion  through  the  Church,  and 
a  considerable  term  of  pre-existence.  This  is  but  one  point 
out  of  several  in  which  recent  investigation  has  brought  out 
more  clearly  the  force  and  definiteness  of  the  testimony 
to  their  early  reception.  "  If  the  battle  had  to  be  fought  on 
the  ground  of  external  evidence,"  Dr.  Salmon  justly  says, 
•'  the  Pastoral  epistles  would  gain  a  complete  victory." 

But  we  must  now  betake  ourselves  to  the  field  of  internal 
criticism.  Here,  we  hasten  to  admit,  there  are  difficulties 
and  obscurities  which  call  for  inquir)',  such  as  in  the 
modern  critical  mind  were  bound  to  awaken  misgiving. 
Chief  amongst  these  is  the  fact — now  generally  admitted, 
and  against  which  apologists  like  Otto  and  Wieseler,  and 
even  Reuss  in  his  earlier  discussions,  have  contended  in 
vain — that  no  place  exists  for  the  Pastorals  in  the  scheme 
of  Paul's  life  given  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  On 
the  other  hand,  Luke's  biography  expressly  leaves  the 
apostle's  story  unfinished ;  and  if  there  be  evidence  sufficient 
to  prove  these  letters  written  by  St.  Paul,  they  become 
themselves  a  decisive  proof  that  his  life  extended  beyond 
the  point  reached  in  Acts  xxviii.  Against  this  supposition 
there  is  no  counter-evidence  of  any  positive  worth.  The 
testimony  of  tradition,  such  as  it  is,^  inclines  in  its  favour. 

*  See  Sandiiy's  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century,  and  the  section  on 
"  Marcion's  Gospel  "  in  Salmon's  Introduction  to  the  Nnv  Testament. 

2  It  is  strange,  indeed,  that  the  Church  preserved  so  shadowy  a 
recollection  of  later  apostolic  times.  With  the  last  sentence  of  the 
Acts  the  curtain  drops  suddenly  upon  an  unfinished  scene,  full  of 
light  and  action,  which  we  were  watching  with  the  most  eager  interest, 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  333 


The  record  of  the  Acts,  if  it  does  not  supply  the  historical 
basis  of  these  epistles,  at  any  rate  leaves  the  ground  clear 
for  thcni.  Granting,  however,  their  fullest  force  to  the 
embarrassments  and  uncertainties  of  the  traditional  view, 
it  appears  to  us,  on  a  candid  re-examination,  that  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  contrary  hypothesis  are  very 
considerably  greater,  and  amount,  in  fact,  to  a  literary  and 
historical  impossibility. 

We  proceed  to  examine,  in  support  of  this  position,  t/ie 
vocabulary  and  style  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles;  \)\^yc  personal 
and  circumstantial  details  ;  their  doctrinal  features  ;  and  the 
ecclesiastical  situation  which  they  assume. 

II.     VOCAUULARV   .\ND   StVLE. 

In  examining  the  vocabulary  of  the  Pastorals  every 
observer  is  struck  by  the  number  of  their  hapax-legomena. 
Holtzmann  (pp.  86-95)  enumerates  seventy-four  in  the  six 
chapters  of  i  Timothy,  forty-six  in  the  four  of  2  Timothy, 
and  twenty-eight  in  the  three  of  Titus  ;  to  these  add  twenty- 
three  verbal  peculiarities  common  to  two  or  more  of  the 
letters,  and  we  have  a  total  of  171  out  of  897,  or  nearly  a 
fifth  of  the  words  of  the  Pastorals,  which  are  found  nowhere 
else  in  the  New  Testament.  (The  list  given  in  the  valuable 
appendices  to  the  (Irimm-Thayer  New  Testament  Lexicon 
agrees  closely  with  this  estimate.)  On  the  first  blush  of  the 
matter,  this  looks  suspicious.  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
whose  authorship  we  cannot  claim  for  St.  Paul,  contains 
in  its  thirteen  longer  chapters  a  slightly  smaller  number  ot 
hapax-legomena.  The  epistle  of  James,  the  only  extant 
work  of  its  author,  in  five  chapters  has  but  seventy- three, 


It  seems,  to  change  the  ftguie,  as  though  the  glare  of  the  fires  of 
burning  Rome  and  Jerusalem  had  thrown  all  contemporary  events  into 
the  shade.  Christian  minds  were  so  occupied  and  overwhelmed  with 
tlie  national  convulsions  taking  place,  wliich  in  view  of  the  prophecies 
of  Christ  appeared  to  portend  the  end  of  the  world,  that  i>ersonal  inci- 
dents remained  unrecorded  or  left  but  a  faint  impress  on  the  memory. 

23 


354  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL 

one  less  than  i  Timothy  with  six ;  while  the  Apocalypse, 
with  all  its  specialty  of  matter,  has  only  156  such  words  in 
its  twenty-two  chapters. 

But  let  us  compare  the  vocabulary  of  the  Pastorals  with 
that  of  other  Pauline  epistles,  and  the  matter  assumes  a 
different  aspect.  The  apostle  Paul  excelled  his  companion 
writers  in  the  New  Testament  in  versatility  ol  expression, 
no  less  than  in  intellectual  breadth  and  force.  And  we  are 
able  to  trace  a  gradual  advance  in  the  freedom  and  variety 
of  his  dialect.  In  the  two  Thessalonian  epistles,  forming 
the  first  group  of  his  writings,  there  is  an  average  oi  five 
hapax-legomena  to  the  chapter ;  in  Romans,  of  the  second 
group,  the  average  number  is  nearly  seven  ;  in  Ephesians 
and  Colossians  taken  together,  eig/it;  in  Philippians,  a  little 
later — although  the  subject-matter  is  of  so  general  a  pur- 
port— the  figure  reaches  ten.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore, 
that  the  Pastorals  furnish  thirteen  hapax-legomena  to  the 
chapter,  especially  when  it  is  considered  that  this  is  the  last 
group  of  the  four,  and  that  if  later  writings  from  the  same 
hand  had  been  extant,  the  list  of  its  peculiarities  would  in 
all  likelihood  have  been  reduced.  The  regular  progres- 
sion of  the  above  figures  marks  them  as  belonging  to  one 
and  the  same  series.  They  show  in  St.  Paul  a  writer  whose 
mind,  fixed  as  it  was  in  its  essential  principles,  yet  never 
grew  stereotyped  nor  encased  itself  in  set  phrases  and 
formulae,  but  to  the  last  was  active  and  sensitive,  taking  on 
new  colours  and  modes  of  expression  from  its  changing 
environment. 

That  this  is  the  true  interpretation  of  the  statistics  we 
have  given  is  confirmed  by  the  variety  of  language  apparent 
in  this  single  group.  Only  a  ninth  of  their  entire  voca- 
bulary is  common  to  the  three  epistles,  notwithstanding  their 
close  connexion  of  thought.  This  ninth  of  the  whole 
forms  a  third  of  the  words  of  Titus — evidently  the  middle 
letter  of  the  group,  as  it  is  the  least  peculiar ;  somewhat 
less  than  a  fourth  of  its  verbiage  occurs  in  neither  of  its 


THE  PASTORAL   EPISTLES.  355 

comrades  ;  and  the  remainder,  nearly  a  half^  it  shares  with 
one  or  other  of  the  two,  hut  not  with  both.  Now  an  imi- 
tator, seeking  to  pahn  off  his  writings  as  St.  Paul's,  would 
presumably  have  followed  the  language  of  his  exemplar 
more  closely  than  the  actual  writer  has  done  ;  he  would 
infallibly  have  repeated  himself  more  frequently,  when  he 
had  once  formed  a  dialect  which  he  thought  would  pass  for 
the  apostle's. 

On  comparing  Colossians  with  its  neighbour?,  Ephesians 
and  Philippians,  we  find  it  agreeing  with  both  in  a  little 
less,  and  differing  from  both  in  somewhat  more  than  a  third 
of  its  vocabulary ;  in  the  remaining  third  it  coincides  with 
one  or  other  of  the  two,  with  Ephesians,  of  course,  in  a 
greatly  preponderating  degree.  Of  the  words  of  Galatians, 
above  two-thirds  recur  in  the  kindred  Romans.  These 
results  correspond  very  closely  with  that  given  by  com- 
parison of  Titus  wiih  its  fellows,  allowance  being  made  for 
the  greater  variety  of  matter  in  the  earlier  sets  of  letters. 
The  author  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  has  the  same  freedom 
and  fertility  of  expression  that  distinguished  the  Paul  of 
the  accepted  epistles.  And  after  all,  his  language  is  sub- 
stantially Pauline.  Out  of  the  726  words  common  to  the 
Pastorals  with  other  New  Testament  books,  while  133  occur 
elsewhere  only  in  non-Pauline  books  (including  Hebrews), 
in  the  remaining  593,  or  as  nearly  as  possible  two-thirds  of 
their  whole  lexical  content — the  same  proportion  in  which 
Galatians  is  identified  with  Romans — they  associate  them- 
selves with  the  older  epistles  of  the  apostle. 

The  analysis  of  the  171  hapax-legomena  yields  interest- 
ing results.  A  number  of  them  are  merely  variations  of 
characteristic  words  of  Paul,  branches  of  the  same  word- 
stem — e.g.,  aKatjpojs,  di'ttAuo-ts,*  iBpaiiDfia^  ffc/xioriy?,   v;r€/);rA«o- 

'  The  first  two  of  these  belong  to  a  sm.ill  group  of  words,  including 
also  KipSo^,  ir/WKOJTT),  affivbs,  ffrdvSofxai,  by  which  the  Pastorals  are 
connected  with  riiilippians,  probably  the  most  recent  of  Paul's  previous 
wrilinL-s. 


556  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


vajQua,  viroTvTrtaa-L';,  <f>p€vaTrdTr]^.  In  the  earfier  epistles  one 
notes  an  increasing  fondness  ^  for  compouiui  words,  some- 
times of  strange  and  original  forms.  This  tendency  is  yet 
more  noticeable  in  the  Pastorals.  Out  of  some  200  nega- 
tive compounds  (in  u-  or  ai-)  in  the  (Ireek  Testament 
Lexicon,  40  are  peculiar  to  the  other  Pauline  epistles,  and 
no  less  than  15  to  these  books  alone.  In  Paul  and  the 
Pastorals  alone  are  found  compounds  of  hefio-,  kuXo-,  kcvo-, 
opdo- ;  Upo-  appears  but  once  (A.  xix.  37)  elsewhere.  Com- 
pare, further,  the  peculiar  derivatives  of  oiko-,  <^i\o-,  ^(fev8o-, 
and  of  Xdyos  and  <jipi]v  (-cftpo:-)  in  the  second  member, 
with  their  parallels  in  other  epistles.  Such  comparison, 
when  extending  to  a  large  number  of  particulars,  seems  to 
us  to  supply  a  peculiarly  delicate  test  of  authorship.  For 
while  a  forger  may  with  some  success  reproduce  in  novel 
combinations  the  identical  language  of  his  original,  to 
create  fresh  words'  on  the  same  analog)-,  and  even  to  carry 
on  further,  up  to  the  date  required,  the  growing  verbal 
habits  and  hobbies  (if  we  may  so  say)  of  the  master,  is  a 
feat  of  literary  personation  beyond  belief. 

Subtracting  from  the  Pastoral  vocabulary  that  which  is 
either  contained  in  other  Pauline  letters  or  has  its  analogy 
and  basis  there,  the  residue  is,  for  the  most  part,  not  diffi- 
cult of  explanation.  The  bulk  of  the  really  isolated  and 
extraordinary  expressions  of  these  books  are  due  to  their 
subject-matter.  Juit//i  unfeigned^  sound  speech  uncondemned, 
the  doctrine  according  to  godliness,  a  spirit  of  discipline,  a 
good  degree ;  the  deposit,  the  laying  on  of  hands,  the  presby- 
tery ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  fables  and  endless  genealogies, 
questio7iings  and  logomachies,  oppositions  of  falsely  najned 
knowledge ;  men  diseased,  puffed  7ip,  corrupted  in  mind  and 
bereft  of  truth,  vain  talkers  and  deceivers,  greedy  of  base  gain. 


*  Any  one  who  will  compare  the  hapax-legomena  of  Colossians  or 
Philippians  wilh  those  of  any  of  the  epistles  of  the  earlier  groups,  as 
given  in  Thayer's  Appendix  to  Grimm's  Lexicon,  will  easily  verily  this 
statement. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  357 

vtakittg  shipwreck  of  faith — these  phrases  are  as  distinctive 
of  and  proper  to  the  l^astoral  Epistles  as  justification  and 
adoptiotiy  bondage  and  works  of  law  to  Romans  and  Gala- 
tians  ;  or  the  fulness  of  Christ,  His  body  the  Church,  princi- 
palities and  poivers,  wisdom  and  mystery  to  Ephesians  and 
Colossians.  Provided  there  is  nothing  un-Pauhne  in  their 
structure,  the  novelty  of  such  words  tells  in  no  way  against 
them.  New  circumstances,  in  a  mind  like  St.  Paul's,  in- 
evitably call  forth  new  ideas  and  expressions.  The  ques- 
tion passes  from  the  domain  of  language  to  that  of  history. 
And  we  shall  have  to  consider  whether  it  was  possible  and 
likely  that  before  the  apostle's  death  the  condition  of  things 
had  come  about  which  the  expressions  we  have  quoted 
indicate  and  describe. 

There  is,  it  is  curious  to  observe,  a  group  of  words  con- 
necting these  letters  with  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  and 
the  writings  of  Luke  (between  which,  as  is  well  known, 
there  are  many  resemblances  of  language).  Out  of  the 
133  words  employed  in  these  but  not  in  other  acknow- 
ledged letters  of  St.  Paul,  17  belong  to  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  34  to  the  Third  Ciospel  or  the  Acts.* 
Amongst  these  are  a  few  so  rare  and  distinctive,  that  they 
strongly  suggest  the  existence  of  some  bond  of  association 
connecting  the  several  writers  with  each  other.  We  note,  as 
bearing  on  the  same  point,  the  predilection  of  our  author 
for   medical  figures   and  phrases,  of  which  there  are  dis- 

•  .Sec  The  Pauline  Aiitik^onieiti,  a  paper  by  llie  Inmrnled  W.  II. 
Simcox,  in  tlie  Exfositor,  yi\  series,  viii.  180^-192;  also  Ilullzniann, 
pp.  95-97.  A  few  words  are  special  to  the  three  in  common.  Amongst 
the  distinctive  expressions  peculiar  to  tlie  Pastorals  and  Hebrews  are 
6.vvir6TaKTos.  atfuXdpyvpof,  /Je/JjyXoj,  iKrpkxfddai,  Kov^uKb^,  dpiyetrSai, 
irpjSijXos.  Peculiar  to  Luke  ((iospel  or  Acts)  and  the  Pastorals  in 
the  N.T. ,  are  ivota,  awTiXa/x^dveaOai,  avTiXiytiv,  axo^p^yfo^,  ^vdileip, 
Svvao'TTjs,  f^aprl^eiy,  ^uypciy,  ^uoyoyeiv,  yofioSiSdffKaXos,  vo<T<pl^(a0ai, 
Ttfidapxii-v,  TtpiepTfOi,  TrpoSoTrj^,  wpoircrjjs,  aiixppoavvq.  </>i\ay0pviria. 
Peculiar  to  the  three  :  5t'  fjv  airiav  (elsewhere  5id  in  St.  Paul),  /tfroXou- 
/Soveif,  wapaiTuadai,  Tvyxdfdv,  x^P*-"  ^X^"  (elsewhere  the  Pauline 
ei5xo/)«r7-i2<).  In  I  Timothy  and  Hebrews  alone  Christ  is  called  "  medi- 
ator." 


358  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


tinct  but  less  numerous  traces  in  earlier  epistles.^  These 
features  of  the  dialect  of  the  Pastorals  are  naturally  ex- 
plained by  the  intimate  and  prolonged  companionship 
which  "  Luke,  the  beloved  physician,"  enjoyed  with  the 
apostle  in  his  declining  years.  The  pathetic  reference  of 
2  Timothy  iv.  ii,  "Only  Luke  is  with  me,"  affords  one  of 
those  undesigned  coincidences  which  are  of  peculiar  force 
in  arguments  of  this  kind,  Hebrews  xiii.  23,  24,  supplies 
a  link  connecting  the  writer  of  this  epistle  with  Timothy 
and  Rome :  and  leads  us  to  suppose  that  he  was  in  touch 
with  the  little  circle  surrounding  the  apostle  in  his  Roman 
prison. 

Occasional  Latinisms,'  appearing  now  for  the  first  time, 
may  indicate  the  effect  on  Paul's  speech  of  his  prison-life 
in  Italy  and  his  travels  in  the  West — probably  as  far  as 
Spain  (to  "  the  limits  of  the  West,"  Clemens  Romantts). 
If  there  is  still  left,  after  all  that  has  been  said,  a  residuum 
of  expressions  that  "  defy  all  attempts  at  explanation " 
(Weiss),  this  will  not  surprise  us  when  we  remember  how 
much  of  the  circumstances  of  Paul's  life  in  these  latest 
years,  and  of  his  mental  history,  is  unknown  to  us.  Much 
the  same  might  be  said  concerning  the  language  of  the 
undoubted  epistles. 

When  we  look  at  the  larger  features  of  style  and  com- 
position, the  conclusion  drawn  from  our  examination  of  the 
writer's  vocabulary  is  confirmed.  True,  we  miss  here,  as 
Holtzmann  says,  "  the  pervasive  dialectical  character,"  the 
organic  unity  and  logical  articulation  of  the  major  epistles  ; 
although,  in  some  instances,  this  defect  lies  with  the  in- 


*  On  St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul,  their  mutual  relations,  see  the  Expositor 
(Dean  Plumptre),  1st  series,  iv.  134-160.  E.g.,  cancer,  cauterized,  dis- 
eased about  (/ucstions,  having  ifcliin^  ears  ;  and  especially  the  fiec|uent 
recurrence  of  sound,  ivholesome,  and  the  opposite,  applied  to  character 
and  teaching.  For  other  epistles,  see  Col.  ii.  19,  and  Lighifoot's  note 
in  liis  Commentary. 

*  E.g.,  tvrpoitov,  otovi  hiwyiMovs  (2Tini.  iii.  8,  II) ;  dSj/Xir?;?,  irplKpifM 
(pra'udicium),  ffeawpfvfieva  d.ua/)rwnx.     See  Holtzmann,  p.  109. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  359 


terpreter  rather  than  the  author,  and  we  may  fail  to  catch 
the  logical  thread  which  in  reality  runs  through  these 
detached  warnings  and  instructions.  Wo.  miss  also  notably 
the  passion  and  glow,  the  incomparable  verve  of  the  earlier 
Paul.  This  is  only  to  be  expected.  We  are  listening  to 
"  Paul  the  aged,"  as  he  called  himself  perhaps  three  years 
before  this  time  (Philem.  9),  a  man  broken  by  extreme 
mental  strain  and  physical  labour,  by  hardship  and  im- 
prisonment. In  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  the  apostle's 
thought  and  style  were  in  their  noontide  of  strength  and 
fervour  ;  in  Ephesians  we  find  their  mellow  afternoon  ;  and 
in  the  Pastorals  the  time  of  evening  has  arrived,  with  its 
shaded  light  and  slackened  step.  Neither  the  subjects  on 
which  he  writes,  nor  the  need  of  his  correspondents  call  for 
the  effort  put  forth  in  the  letters  to  Corinth  and  Rome. 
But  if  these  writings  do  not  exhibit  the  sustained  power  of 
the  great  epistles,  the  same  power  manifests  itself — the 
Pauline  subtlety  of  reasoning,  and  wealth  of  theological 
conception,  and  intensity  of  personal  feeling — coming  out  in 
single  expressions  and  sentences  that  flash  with  the  genius 
of  the  old  master.  Who  but  the  apostle  Paul  could  have 
penned  such  passages  as  i  Timothy  i.  8-1 1;  ii.  5-7;  2 
Timothy  i.  8-12  ;  iv.  6-8;  Titus  ii.  11-15;  "'•  4-8?  "  E'en 
in  our  ashes  live  their  wonted  fires."  The  Church  has  not 
erred  in  discerning  in  these  books  the  ring  of  Paul's  voice 
and  inspiration. 

If  the  logical  particles  of  the  argumentative  epistles  arc 
missing — if  ya/j,  for  instance,  recurs  oftener  in  Galatians  than 
in  the  three  Pastorals  together,  and  apa,  tTrcira,  Itj,  uxnrtp 
never  put  in  an  appearance — this  is  in  favour  of  authenticity 
rather  than  otherwise.  Nothing  would  have  been  easier 
for  a  man  steeped  in  Paulinism  like  our  author,  than  to 
sprinkle  his  pages  with  catchwords  of  this  kind.  This 
objection  applies  with  almost  equal  force  to  the  letters  ot 
the  first  imprisonment,  which  form  in  several  respects  a 
middle  term  between  the  major  epistles  and  the  Pastorals. 


363  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


It  is  true,  again,  that  instances  of  anacohdlion  und  paren- 
thesis, of  the  interrupted  and  varied  periods  so  characteristic 
of  Paul's  style,  are  infrequent  here  ;  but  the  reason  for  this 
is  obvious — namely,  that  the  long-drawn  argument  and 
passionate  feeling  of  the  great  epistles  are  also  wanting. 
Broken  periods,  notwithstanding,  do  occur,  as  in  i  Timothy 
i.  3,  ff.  (comp.  Rom.  v.  12,  ff.) ;  i  Timothy  ii.  i,  resumed  in 
ver.  12  (comp.  Eph.  iii.  1-14) ;  i  Timothy  iii.  15,  f.  ;  Titus  i. 
1-3  ;  iii.  4-7.  The  tendency  of  Paul's  sentences  to  grow  out 
of  shape,  extending  themselves  indefinitely  in  a  chain  of  pre- 
positional, participial,  or  relative  clauses,  reaches  an  extreme 
in  such  passages  as  i  Timothy  i.  18-20  (comp.,  for  the  string 
of  relatives,  i  Cor.  ii.  7,  8;  Col.  i.  27-29);  iv.  1-3;  vi.  13-16  ; 
2  Timothy  i.  3-5,  8-12  ;  Titus  i.  1-4  (comp.  Rom.  i.  1-7) ;  ii. 
11-14.  These  periods  reproduce  the  Pauline  manner,  with- 
out the  least  sign  of  artifice  or  imitation.  In  what  other 
writer  can  we  find  such  looseness  of  grammatical  construc- 
tion combined  with  such  closeness  and  continuity  of 
thought  ?  "  St.  Paul's  style,"  M.  Renan  says,  "  is  the  most 
personal  that  ever  was — hardly  a  consecutive  phrase  in  it ; 
it  is  a  rapid  conversation  stenographed,  and  reproduced 
without  correction."  This  is  precisely  the  impression  which 
the  reading  of  these  epistles  makes  on  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment scholar. 

Let  the  student  compare,  for  example,  i  Timothy  ii.  with 
a  practical  section  of  the  early  epistles — say,  Romans  xiii. 
He  will  discover  an  identical  method  and  movement  of  mind 
in  both  places — injunction  guarded  by  careful  distinction 
and  explanation,  supported  by  large  general  principles, 
and  enforced  by  appeals  to  the  presence  of  Cod  or  of 
Christ — all  this  poured  out  as  a  living  stream  of  thought, 
in  the  most  informal  manner  one  can  conceive.  Or  let 
him  put  I  Timothy  vi.  3-12  by  the  side  of  Colossians  ii. 
8 — iii.  4,  as  a  specimen  of  the  apostle's  later  polemical  style. 
In  each  case  he  sets  out  by  stating  the  contradiction  of  the 
principles  condemned  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  going  on 


THE   PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  361 

to  indicate  the  character  of  their  professors  and  the  out- 
come of  their  teaching,  and  concludes  by  urging  his  readers 
to  pursue  the  opposite  path  and  showing  them  its  glorious 
issue. 

Among  minor  mannerisms  in  which  this  writer  iden- 
tifies himself  with  St.  Paul,  are  the  argumentative  use  of 
oiha.  in  such  phrases  as  Knowing  this.  But  7ve  know,  etc. ; 
the  reference  to  opponents  as  tikcs  {certain  persons)  ;  the 
frequent  use  oi  if  any,  if  anything  else,  for  whosoez'er,  what- 
ever else;  the  characteristic  in  Christ  as  a  distinguishing 
adjunct  of  Christian  acts  and  states ;  the  intensive  use  of 
TTcis  to  heighten  qualities,  2iS  all  acceptation,  all  long-suffering, 
etc. ;  the  employment  of  ttiotcvw  in  the  passive  (exclusively 
Pauline  in  the  New  Testament,  found  thrice  here,  five  times 
elsewhere) ;  of  /AoAiora,  especially,  in  qualifications  (four 
times  here,  thrice  in  Paul  elsewhere) ;  the  agreement  of 
oo-Tis  with  its  predicate  ( I  Tim.  iii.  15,  six  times  in  other  epp. ; 
Acts  xvi.  12  is  different);  and  the  accusative  of  apposition 
to  a  sentence,  an  idiom  confined  to  i  Timothy  ii.  6  and  two 
earlier  passages  of  St.  Paul.  Most  remarkable  of  alj,  per- 
haps, is  the  order  Christ  Jesus  (according  to  the  critical 
texts)  in  which  our  Saviours  name  is  written  wherever  His 
official  character  or  His  present  rule  over  His  servants  or 
relation  to  them  is  in  the  writer's  mind.  The  distinction 
between  Jesus  Christ  (historical)  and  Christ  Jesus  (official) 
has  never  been  observed  by  any  other  Christian  writer  with 
the  same  instinctive  care  and  delicacy  as  by  St.  Paul.* 

Now,  the  appearance  of  new  and  disappearance  of  older 
forms  of  speech  are  accountable  in  the  later  compositions 
of  a  versatile  writer.  But  the  persistence  in  these  epistles 
of  so  many  Pauline  idiosyncrasies,  and  these  of  so  varied  a 


'  See  on  this  subject  a  valuaMe  essay  l>y  tlie  late  revere<l  IJenjamin 
Hellier  on  "  The  Pauline  Usage  of  the  Names  of  Christ,"  in  the  Theo- 
los^ical  Monthly  for  Febmary,  April,  and  July,  1890.  Mr.  Ileilier 
finds  that  this  criterion  tells  decisively  in  favour  of  the  Pauline  author- 
ship of  the  Pastorals,  but  against  that  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 


362  THE  AFOSTLE  PAUL. 

character  as  we  have  shown  them  to  be,  sporadic  in  their 
occurrence  and  inwoven  into  the  entire  texture  of  thought 
and  speech,  is  only  consistent  with  one  assumption — namely, 
that  their  titular  is  also  their  actual  author,  and  that  the 
word  Paul,  with  which  they  each  begin,  is  the  honest  truth. 

■  III.  Peksonal  Data  of  the  Pastorals. 

In  the  case  of  2  Timothy  the  references  to  person  and 
place  are  so  multiplied  (more  numerous,  in  fact,  than  in 
any  other  epistle  except  Romans)  and  wear  so  genuine  an 
aspect,  that  they  have  secured  iti  its  favour  the  verdict  of 
many  critics,  including  Schleiermacher,  Bleek,  Neander, 
Ritschl,  and  finally  Reuss  (formerly  accepting  all  three),  who 
reject  one  or  both  of  its  comrades.  Others,  such  as  Ewald, 
Renan,  Hausrath,  Hitzig,  Pfleiderer,  Sabatier,  are  inclined 
to  see  in  these  circumstantial  notices  (2  Tim.  i.  15-18  ;  iv. 
9-21  ;  also  Tit.  iii.  12-15)  fragments  of  one  or  more  lost 
letters  of  the  apostle.  Holtzmann,  following  Baur,  declines 
all  theories  of  partial  authenticity  (pp.  119-  126) ;  he  regards 
these  verses  as  concocted  for  the  express  purpose  of  giving  a 
colour  to  documents  wholly  spurious  and  supposititious. 
This  is,  at  least,  consistent.  The  three  epistles  must  stand 
or  fall  together,  and  in  their  integrity  ;  they  are  of  one 
piece  and  texture.  If  the  genuineness  of  2  Timothy  is 
certified  by  circumstantial  evidence,  the  reason  is  gone  for 
impugning  the  rest ;  for  their  dialect,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
situation  they  suppose,  are  already  proved  to  be  Pauline. 
Let  us  review  these  passages,  and  see  if  they  do  not  com- 
mend themselves  and  the  documents  to  which  they  belong. 

The  mention  of  the  Asiatic  party  "  of  whom  is  Phygelus 
and  Hermogenes"  (2  Tim.  i.  15),  serves  as  a  motive  for 
Timothy  to  "guard  the  good  deposit"  (ver.  14;  comp. 
chap.  ii.  I,  2);  and  the  desertion  of  these  men  in  turn  reminds 
Paul  of  the  contrasted  behaviour  of  Onesiphorus  (vers.  1 6- 1 8). 
This  parenthesis  (vers.  15-18)  enforces  the  need  for  courage 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  363 

and  faithfulness  on  Timothy's  part,  and  for  the  choice  of 
a  succession  of  "  faithful  men  "  as  teachers  in  the  Church. 
It  cannot  be  detached  from  the  context. 

The  tidings  and  messages  concluding  the  letter  arc  the 
most  miscellaneous  of  the  kind  in  Paul's  correspondence. 
They  are  thrown  out  with  the  unstudied  freedom  natural 
when  the  heart  is  full  and  there  are  many  things  to  say, 
and  perhaps  little  time  to  say  them.  Kenan's  phrase, 
"  conversation  stenographed,"  exactly  describes  2  Timothy 
iv.  9-21.  The  repeated  "Come  quickly  "  of  Paul's  yearning 
heart  (vers.  9,  21)  is  put  down  by  Holtzmann  (p.  62),  as 
in  Titus  iii.  1 2,  to  the  "  tendency*"  of  the  writer,  who  is 
anxious  that  Timothy  and  Titus  "  should  not  seem  too 
independent  by  the  side  of  the  apostle ! " — a  pitiful  ex- 
ample of  the  Tubingen  method. — The  allusion  to  the 
despatch  of  "  Titus  to  Dalmatia  "  in  2  Timothy  iv.  10  agrees 
with  the  summons  previously  given  him  in  Titus  iii.  12 
"  to  Nicopolis,"  lying  in  the  same  direction. — The  apostle 
wishes  to  have  Mark  by  his  side,  as  well  as  Timothy 
himself  (ver.  11);  and  this  surely  suggests  his  saying, 
"Tychicus  have  I  sent*  to  Ep/iestis"  (ver.  12);  he  is  not 
forgetting  that  Timothy  is  there,-  but  intimates  that  Ephesus 
would  not  be  left  without  oversight  (comp.  Tit.  iii.  12). 
We  know  from  Colossians  iv.  10  that  Mark  had  recovered 
St.  Paul's  esteem,  forfeited  by  the  conduct  related  in  Acts 
xiii.  13,  and  was  with  him  during  the  former  imprisonment 
at  Rome,  where  he  had  doubtless  shown  himself  "  use- 
ful for  service '" ;  and,  moreover,  that  he  was  then  about 
to  set  out  for  Asia— whence  Paul  now  desires  to  recall 
him. — The  "cloak"  and  "books"  (ver,  13),  we  presume, 
were   "  left  at   Troas    with   Carpus "   on    St.   Paul's  last 


'  "  Sent  "  probably  with  this  veiy  leUcr.  'AWaretXa  we  may  take 
to  be  epistolary  aonst,  wrillen  from  the  reader's  standpoint,  as  in 
Col.  iv.  8. 

*  .So  we  learn  from  ver.  19,  if  not  from  the  general  tenor  of  the 
letter,  in  its  connexion  with  i  Timothy. 


364  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

journey  to  Macedonia  (i  Tim.  i.  3),  which  found  an  un- 
expected terminus  in  the  prison  at  Rome.  The  Tendency 
critics  are  sadly  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  manufacture 
by  the  pseudo-Paul  of  these  articles.  The  thought  of  the 
coming  "winter"  (ver.  21)  reminds  the  imprisoned  man 
of  his  old  cloak  ;  and  in  his  solitude  he  craves  the  com- 
panionship of  books. — "  Alexander  the  coppersmith  "  (vers. 
14,  15)  forms  a  link  between  the  apostle's  directions  to 
Timothy  (vers.  9-13),  and  the  account  of  his  own  position 
he  is  about  to  give  in  vers.  16-18.  This  man  had  borne 
witness,  directly  or  indirectly,  against  Paul  at  Rome,  and 
this  was  not  the  first  injury  suffered  from  him  :  was  it 
through  his  machinations  that  the  apostle's  renewed  im- 
prisonment had  come  about  ?  Timothy,  in  starting  for 
Rome,  is  warned  against  his  plots.— The  satisfaction  St. 
Paul  feels  in  having  proclaimed  his  great  message  on  the 
occasion  of  his  defence  before  the  Emperor's  tribunal  (ver. 
17)  is  in  keeping  with  what  he  intimates  in  Romans  i.  8, 
14-16  (comp.  Acts  xxiii.  11)  touching  the  importance  that, 
in  his  judgment,  belonged  to  the  imperial  city  as  a  centre 
for  Gentile  Christianity.  This  opportunity  was,  in  truth, 
the  climax  of  the  apostle's  mission  to  the  heathen  (Acts  ix. 
15;  xxvii.  24).  Ver.  18  signifies  that  his  present  deliver- 
ance is  but  a  respite,  perhaps  for  a  few  months  (ver.  21), 
leaving  no  doubt  in  his  mind  as  to  the  final  issue ;  it  is 
"  into  Christ's  heavenly  kingdom  "  that  Paul  now  looks  to  be 
"  saved." — Perhaps  the  salutation  to  "  the  house  of  Onesi- 
phorus  "  (ver.  19 ;  comp.  chap.  i.  16)  recalls  to  the  writer's 
mind  "  Erastus  "  and  "  Trophimus  "  (ver.  20),  who  had  failed 
to  render  him  the  service  expected  from  them.  One  is 
surprised,  however,  that  Timothy  should  be  told  of  what 
had  occurred  "at  Miletus,"  but  a  few  miles  distant  from 
Ephesus,  months  before  this  time.  Possibly  the  apostle 
at  this  point  is  talking  to  himself  x:\.\\\f^x  than  to  Timothy  ; 
he  drops  into  soliloquy.  "\\'e  have  met  before  with  Erastus 
and  Trophimus  in  Timothy's  company  (Acts  xix.  223  xx.  4  ; 
not  the  Erastus  of  Romans  xvi.  23). 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  365 

The  names  of  those  who  greet  Timothy  from  Rome  bear 
the  marks  of  authenticity.  They  are  new  to  the  epistles ; 
two  of  them  arc  (Ircek,  two  I^tin  names.  "  Linus " 
appears  in  the  list  of  the  first  bishops  of  Rome. 

Twenty-three  members  of  the  apostolic  Church  are  men- 
tioned in  this  letter  ;  eleven  of  them  for  the  first  and  last 
time  in  the  New  Testament.  In  the  cases  of  the  other 
twelve,  there  is  nothing  at  variance  with,  nor  anything 
lepeated  from,  what  we  learn  elsewhere  about  the  persons 
referred  to,  but  much  that  agrees  with  it,  and  in  unexpected 
ways. 

Towards  Timothy  and  Titus,  some  of  the  critics  say, 
Paul  is  made  to  assume  a  domineering  attitude,  lecturing 
and  "scolding"  Timothy,  forsooth,  as  if  he  were  "a  raw 
catechumen  "  !  This  is  grossly  exaggerated.  What  we  do 
see  is  the  apostolic  dignity,  softened  by  a  tender  sympathy 
and  blended  in  Timothy's  case  with  apprehension,  with 
which  St.  Paul,  in  the  presence  of  the  Church,  charges  his 
representatives  placed  in  circumstances  of  grave  responsi- 
bility and  peril.  He  addresses  Timothy,  his  helper  for 
many  years,  as  a  jw/;/?-man  (i  Tim.  iv.  12 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  22  ; 
comp.  Tit.  ii.  15);  but  when  these  letters  were  written 
Timothy  had  scarcely  passed  his  thirtieth  year,  and  he  was 
set  over  the  eldership  of  Ephesus.  He  was  of  a  nature 
apt  to  retain  its  youth ;  and  to  old  men  those  of  the  next 
generation  always  seem  yoimg. 

On  the  whole,  it  does  not  appear  that  Timothy's  charac- 
ter had  matured  in  the  way  we  might  have  hoped.  He  was 
not  prepared  to  be  thrown  on  his  own  resources.  The 
youthful  timidity  hinted  at  in  i  Corinthians  xvi.  10,  11  he 
had  not  sufficiently  outgrown  ;  the  repeated  exhortations 
to  courage  and  endurance  addressed  to  him  in  the  second 
epistle  imply  some  failure  in  this  respect.  With  this  was 
connected  a  want  of  firmness,  a  pliability  and  accessibility 
to  private  influences,  against  which  he  needed  to  be  cau- 
tioned (i   Tim.  V.    19,  22).     W^e  imagine  there  was  some- 


365  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


thing  recluse  and  contemplative  in  his  disposition,  tending 
to  abstract  him  from  public  and  practical  duties  (i  Tim.  iv. 
1 1-16) ;  and  associated  with  this  a  touch  of  asceticism,  which 
made  him  weaker  to  resist  the  very  temptations  he  most 
shunned  (i  Tim.  v.  22,  23).  And  we  suspect  that  Hofmann 
is  right  in  inferring  from  i  Timothy  vi.  3-12,  that  the  young 
minister  was  sometimes  inclined  in  his  weariness  and  de- 
spondency to  envy  the  easy,  gainful  life  which  false  teachers 
were  pursuing  under  his  eyes. 

In  fact,  Timothy's  was  a  fine,  but  not  a  robust  nature ; 
liable  to  suffer  from  an  uncongenial  atmosphere,  and  ill- 
framed  for  conflict  and  leadership,  with  more  of  the  ivy  in 
its  composition  than  the  oak.  St.  Paul  found  in  him  the 
complement  of  his  own  bold  and  active  temperament,  as 
Peter  did  in  John,  and  Luther  in  Melanchthon.  In  the 
apostle's  company  Timothy  had  shown  admirable  devotion 
and  steadfastness  (Phil.  ii.  19-23).  But  he  drooped  alone. 
Separated  so  long  from  his  leader,  amid  surroundings  trying 
in  the  last  degree  to  his  sensitive  disposition  and  delicate 
frame,  his  faith  and  his  character  were  severely  strained. 
The  "tears"  with  which  he  parted  from  the  apostle  (2  Tim. 
i.  4)  and  his  reluctance  to  be  left  longer  at  Ephesus  (i  Tim. 
i.  3)  were  due  not  merely  to  his  love  for  his  father  in 
Christ,  but  to  the  peculiar  difficulty  to  him  of  the  work  laid 
upon  him.  The  portrait  which  these  letters  give  us  of 
young  Timothy  is  consistent  and  life-like,  and  it  harmonizes 
well  with  the  slighter  traits  preserved  in  the  other  epistles 
and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

A  plausible  objection  to  i  Timothy  lies  in  the  fact  that 
when  he  wrote  this  letter,  St.  Paul,  it  appears,  had  very  re- 
cently left  Timothy  behind  at  Ephesus,  after  himself  paying 
a  visit  to  the  city  (chap.  i.  3).  What  need,  then,  for  these 
detailed  and  reiterated  advices,  about  matters,  too,  which, 
one  would  have  thought,  the  apostle  might  have  arranged 
himself  when  he  was  on  the  spot  ?  Our  answer  is  that,  in 
all  probability,  Paul  had  not  been  at  Ephesus  at  this  time. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  367 


"The  words  of  i  Timothy  i.  3  only  say  that  Paul  wished 
Timothy  to  stay  at  Ephesus  where  he  then  was,  while  he 
himself  went  on  to  Macedonia"  (Hofmann).  llpoo-ftafai 
means  to  remain  stilly  to  stay  on  (Acts  xviii.  18),  not  to  re- 
main behind,  which  is  v-rvop-ivtw  (Acts  xvii.  14)  or  might  have 
been  expressed  as  in  Titus  i.  5.  And  -opcro/xcjo?  may  signify 
on  my  way,  in  the  course  of  my  Journey  to  Macedonia,  just 
as  well  as  setting  out  to  Macedonia  (see  Acts  xxi.  6).  The 
apostle  was  bound  for  Macedonia,  and  could  not  afford  to 
turn  aside  to  Ephesus ;  ^  for  this  very  reason  he  desired 
Timothy  to  continue  his  sojourn  there,  in  order  to  carry  out 
instructions  already  given  in  brief,  and  which  he  now  com- 
municates at  length.  The  incident  of  Acts  xx.  17  ("from 
Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus  and  called  the  elders  of  the 
Church  ")  seems  to  have  repeated  itself,  perhaps  at  the  same 
spot  (comp.  2  Tim.  iv.  20) ;  only  Paul  is  now  travelling  in  the 
opposite  direction  (chap.  iv.  13,  20),- and  summons  Timothy 


'  Another  reason  suggests  itself  for  St.  Paul's  giving  Ephesus  the  go- 
by. His  first  ministry  there  ended  in  a  great  popular  tumult.  He  had 
made  powerful  and  bitter  enemies  in  the  city,  and  left  it  shaken  both 
in  mind  and  body  and  in  peril  of  his  life  (comp.  2  Cor.  i.  8-10  with 
I  Cor.  .\v.  32  and  Acts  xi.\.).  It  was  "  the  Jews  from  Asia"  who  began 
the  murderous  assault  upon  him  afterwards  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  27)  ; 
and  '•Alexander  the  coppersmith,"  in  all  likelihood  the  Jewish  leader 
whom  his  countrymen  put  forward  in  the  Ephesian  not  (Acts  xix 
33),  about  this  time  did  the  apostle  "  much  evil."  Paul  sought  help 
from  his  friends  "in  Asia"  (2  Tim.  i.  15  ;  comp.  Acts  xix.  30,  31) — 
probably  rebutting  evidence  ;  and  it  was  refused  (through  the  influence 
of  his  opponents  there?).  All  this  goes  to  show  that  Ephesus  was  a  most 
dangerous  place  for  St.  Paul,  and  that  he  had  good  reason  for  the  sorrow- 
ful anticipation  of  Acts  xx.  25.  His  relation  to  Ephesus  was  something 
like  that  to  Thessalonica  long  before,  when  he  "  would  fain  have  come 
once  and  again  ;  but  Satan  hindered." 

-  It  is  evident  that  the  three  P.astoral  Epistles  were  written  in  quick 
succession,  and  that  the  events  connected  with  them  marched  rapidly. 
The  course  of  Paul's  movements,  in  our  view,  was  something  like  this: 
He  sailed  from  Crete  (calling  there,  perhaps,  on  his  way  East  from 
.Spain),  where  he  left  Titus  ;  then  coasted  along  the  Asiatic  shore,  call- 
ing at  Miletus  and  Troas  amongst  other  places  ;  wrote  to  Timothy  from 
Macedonia,  shortly  afterwards  to  Titus;  then  proceeded  to  Corinth,  and 
was  arrested  and  hurrietl  to  Rome  during  the  summer,  before  he  reached 
Nicopolis.  The  journey  to  the  East  proposed  in  Phil.  ii.  24  and  Phile- 
mon 22  was  accomplished,  we  imagine,  before  the  mission  to  Spain. 


36S  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

(not  the  body  of  the  elders)  from  Ephesus  for  an  interview,^ 

at  the  end  of  which  his  young  helper,  tearful  (chap.  i.  4)  and 
reluctant  ("  I  exhorted  thee  "),  ■  returns  to  his  station,  and 
the  apostle  pursues  his  journey,  promising  to  send  Timothy 
a  full  letter  of  instructions  based  on  the  representations  his 
assistant  had  made  to  him  touching  the  condition  of  things 
in  the  Ephesian  Church.  Such  a  letter  we  have  in  the  first 
epistle  to  Timothy.  Since  Paul  and  'I'imothy  had  met  so 
recently,  there  would  be  no  need  for  inserting  anything  in 
the  shape  of  news  or  private  messages.  All  that  remained 
to  be  said  was  of  an  official  character,  and  pertained  to  the 
public  conduct  of  Timothy's  ministry  at  Ephesus. 

If  our  view  of  the  order  of  things  be  correct,  then  St. 
Paul's  presentiment  of  six  or  seven  years  ago,  that  the 
Ephesians  would  "see  his  face  no  more  "(Acts  xx.  25)  was 
verified.  He  still  "  hopes  to  come  "  (i  Tim.  iii.  14  ;  iv.  13), 
but  with  no  certainty  ;  and  we  gather  from  the  silence  of  the 
second  letter  that  he  had  failed  to  do  so,  and  Timothy  had 
still  to  remain  month  after  month  at  his  unwelcome  post, 
without  sight  of  his  dear  master  and  enduring  the  hope 
deferred  which  "  maketh  the  heart  sick."  The  service  of 
Onesiphorus  to  the  apostle  "in  Ephesus"  (2  Tim.  i.  18) 
may  just  as  well  have  been  rendered  to  him  during  his 
former  long  residence  there.  His  repulse  by  "  all  those  in 
Asia,"  and  the  "  evil  "  done  him  by  Alexander,  related  pro- 
bably to  his  trial  now  in  process  at  Rome,  when  unfavour- 
able evidence  was  given  by  the  latter  and  favourable  evidence 
withheld  by  the  former  (chap.  i.  15 ;  iv.  14-16).  The  sentence 
against  "  Hymenceus  and  Alexander"  (i  Tim.  i.  20) — not 
the  Alexander  of  2  Timothy  iv.  14 — could  have  been  pro- 


'  Hofmann  does  not  suppose  an  intcniew  necessary  (pp.  66,  67). 
He  thinks  the  "  exhortation  "  of  I  Tim.  i.  3  was  made  by  letter  ;  and 
that  the  "  tears"  of  2  Tnn.  i.  4  were  inept  by  letter  m  return  (Iniejlick 
^'eii'eiiit)—a.  conceit  by  which  he  compromises  an  otherwise  strong  posi- 
tion. There  is  no  need  for  the  apostle  in  either  epistle  to  refer  lurther 
to  the  circumstances  of  his  meeting  with  Timothy.  A  meeting  sa//ie- 
-where  there  clearly  had  been 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  369 


nounced  from  a  distance,  like  that  against  the  Corinthian 
offender  (i  Cor.  v,  3-5).  None  of  these  allusions  compel 
us  to  suppose  that  Paul  had  himself  been  recently  in 
Ephesus. 

Against  the  authenticity  of  2  Timothy  it  is  contended 
that  the  exhortations  of  chap.  ii.  i-iv.  6  are  inconsistent 
witli  the  "  speedy  "  coming  to  Rome  which  Paul  urges  on 
his  friend.  But  it  will  be  observed  that  these  directions  arc 
much  less  specific  than  those  previously  given  in  the  first 
epistle,  and  bear  on  Timothy's  own  spirit  and  character 
rather  than  his  administrative  duties ;  also  that  his  "  doins, 
his  diligence  to  come  before  winter  "  does  not  exclude — it 
rather  implies — uncertainty  and  causes  of  delay.  Especially 
we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  apostle  knew  his  end  to 
be  near,  and  feared  that  this  might  be  his  last  message  to 
his  "dear  child  Timothy"  (2  Tim.  iv.  5,  6). 

A  similar  objection  is  brought  against  the  epistle  to  Titus, 
grounded  on  chap.  iii.  1 2,  and  much  the  same  reply  may 
be  made.  In  this  case  it  will  be  noticed  that  Paul  expressly 
provides  for  the  continuance  of  Titus'  mission  by  "  Artemas, 
or  Tychicus  " ;  in  which  event,  we  may  presume,  Titus  would 
hand  over  the  instructions  now  received  to  the  brother  who 
relieved  him. 

We  have  finally  to  consider  the  light  in  which  Paul  him- 
self appears  in  these  epistles.  Why,  it  is  asked,  should  he 
write  to  his  old  assistants  and  familiars,  his  "  true  children  " 
in  the  faith,  with  so  much  stiffness  and  formality  and  such 
an  air  of  authority,  so  that  the  greeting  to  Titus,  for 
example,  is  only  surpassed  by  that  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  in  its  solemnity  and  rhetorical  fulness?  The 
answer  lies  partly  in  the  fact  that  these  epistles,  especially 
1  Timothy  and  Titus,  are  "  open,"'  or  quasi-public  letters, 
written  with  the  Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete  in  view, 
and  such  as  it  would  be  suitable  to  read,  in  part  at  least, 
at  their  assemblies.  The  case  of  Philemon  is  quite  dif- 
ferent.    And  the  apostle  writes,  above  all  in  2  Timothy, 

24 


370  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


under  the  sense  that  "  the  time  of  his  departure  is  at 
hand."  His  words  have  the  grave  and  pathetic  dignity  of 
a  valedictory  address  to  his  successors  in  the  ministry 
of  Christ. 

The  critics  find  something  of  exaggeration  and  "  extreme 
rhetoric"  in  the  allusions  of  i  Timothy  i.  12-17  to  Paul's 
earlier  life.  But  these  references  are  in  keeping  with  i 
Corinthians  xv.  9  and  Ephesians  iii.  8.  The  ardent  grati- 
tude and  profound  self-abasement  before  the  sovereignty 
of  Divine  grace  which  animated  the  apostle  throughout  his 
ministry  naturally,  come  to  their  fullest  expression  in  his 
closing  years.  We  catch  in  these  words  the  very  beating 
of  St.  Paul's  heart.  Nemo  potest  Faiilintivi  pectus  effingerc 
(Erasmus).  To  treat  them  as  the  cold  and  crafty  invention 
of  a  forger  is  little  short  of  sacrilege.  It  is  said  that  there 
is  an  egotism  in  the  letters,  a  fondness  for  reverting  to 
his  own  history  and  making  himself  a  model  for  others, 
unlike  the  genuine  Paul.  (See  however,  i  Thess.  ii.  i,  2  ; 
I  Cor.  ix. ;  iv.  1-6;  x.  33-xi.  i;  Gal.  iv.  11-20,  etc.) 
This  feature  of  the  Pastorals  is,  to  our  mind,  one  of  the 
subtlest  traits  of  reality.  How  naturally  the  old  man's  mind 
turns  to  the  days  of  his  youth !  His  memory  lingers  over 
the  past.  He  delights  to  dwell  on  the  great  trust  that  God 
first  committed  to  him,  and  which  must  so  soon  pass  into 
the  hands  of  others.  It  is  truly  affecting  thus  to  see  the 
old  warrior  "  fight  his  battles  o'er  again,"  and  to  note  the 
simple-hearted  joy  with  which  he  draws  from  his  own  trials 
and  triumphs  encouragements  for  the  fearful  Timothy. 
His  references  to  the  family  and  childhood  of  Timothy 
further  show  how  much  the  aged  apostle's  mind  is  living 
in  the  past  (2  Tim.  i.  5 ;  iii.  14,  15). 

The  beauty  of  St.  Paul's  "  swan-song,"  in  2  Timothy  iv. 
6-8,  should  have  raised  it  for  ever  above  critical  mistrust. 
No  passage  in  his  epistles  is  more  finely  touched  with 
the  apostle's  genius.  It  has  the  Hebraistic  rhythm  of  all 
his  more  exalted  utterances.     It  echoes  earlier  sayings,  but 


THE  PASTORAL   EPISTLES.  371 

without  repetition.  It  is  the  cup  of  a  deep  spring  filled  to 
the  brim  with  Paul's  finest  thought  and  tendcrest  feeling, 
expressed  with  a  serenity  which  came  to  his  strenuous 
nature  only  at  rare  moments,  and  speaks  of  a  heart  at  ease 
within  itself  and  that  knows  its  labour  ended  and  its  storms 
gone  by.  These  verses  have  an  ideal  fitness  as  the  apostle's 
final  record  and  pronouncement  upon  his  own  career. 
They  put  the  seal  of  their  faithful  testimony  on  the  earthly 
conflicts  and  toils  of  Christ's  servant,  crowned  already  with 
the  earnest  of  the  crown  that  awaits  him  from  the  hand  of 
his  Saviour  and  Judge.  Nor  has  Christian  faith  since  found 
any  higher  expression  of  its  sense  of  victory  in  the  presence 
of  the  last  enemy. 

The  concluding  line,  in  which  the  apostle  claims  this 
crown  for  "  all,"  with  himself,  '•  who  have  loved  the  Lord's 
appearing,"  breathes  the  essence  of  the  Pauline  spirit.  It 
was  exactly  like  him  to  say  this  at  the  summit  of  his  glad- 
ness and  hope,  whose  life  was  a  sacrifice  to  the  Church  of 
God  and  his  glory  and  crown  of  rejoicing  in  the  consummate 
salvation  of  his  brethren  in  Christ.  He  invites  us  to  share 
his  own  perfected  fellowship  in  the  joy  of  our  Lord.  We 
accept  the  token  and  hold  it  fast,  knouing  from  whom  we 
have  received  it. 

We  have  now  completed  our  examination  of  the  language 
of  the  disputed  epistles,  and  the  circumstantial  evidence 
for  their  origin  which  they  themselves  supply.  However 
defective  the  inquiry,  and  open  to  objection  in  the  details 
of  interpretation,  we  venture  to  think  that  it  furnishes  suflS- 
cient  proof  that  the  canonical  epistles  to  Timothy  and 
Titus  are  the  work  of  the  apostle  Paul,  and  that  the  early 
Church  was  justified  in  accepting  these  three  letters  in  the 
name  which  they  bore,  and  incorporating  them  with  the 
other  ten  epistles  upon  the  same  footing  of  unquestioned 
authority.  Neither  in  the  style  of  the  writings,  nor  in  the 
tenor  of  their  personal  allusions,  is  there  adequate  ground, 


372  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

it  seems  to  us,  for  the  serious  and  long-sustained  suspicions 
which  exist  against  them.  It  is  in  the  subject-matter  of  the 
epistles,  in  the  nature  of  their  theological  and  ecclesiastical 
contents,  that  these  doubts  have  their  motive  and  their  real 
basis.  Holtzmann  is  almost  alone  among  his  associates  in 
seeking  to  ground  his  theory  on  a  proper  linguistic  analysis 
of  the  documents.  For  the  most  part  the  Tendency  critics 
take  it  as  a  thing  self-evident  and  beyond  the  need  of 
proof,  that  the  heretics  condemned  in  the  Pastorals  were 
Gnostics  of  the  second  century ;  and  their  interpretation  pro- 
ceeds on  this  assumption. 

The  closing  sentences  of  Dr.  Pfleiderer's  account  of  the 
epistles,  given  in  his  Urchristent/'um,  exhibit  very  clearly 
the  point  of  view  from  which  the  school  he  represents  regard 
these  writings,  and  the  path  by  which  they  have  arrived  at 
their  conclusions  : — 

"The  Pastoral  Epistles,  especially  the  latest  of  tlicni,  the  so-called 
I''irst  to  J  ii/tol/iy—\ia.\-e.  the  way  for  that  development  of  episcopacy 
in  the  Church  which  we  find  completed  in  the  Ignatian  Lettcis  ;  and 
it  is  in  this  very  purpose  of  helping  to  victory  the  idea  of  the  episco- 
pate as  an  apostolic  institution,  that  we  discover,  side  by  side  with 
the  polemic  against  Gnostic  heresy,  the  second  main  object  of  these 
epistles.  In  reality,  these  two  objects  are  one  and  the  same.  .  .  . 
From  the  necessity  that  the  Church  should  assert  herself  against  the 
heretics  there  came  about,  on  the  one  hand,  the  authentication  of  tradi- 
tion in  the  form  of  ecclesiastical  dogma,  and  on  the  other,  the  apostolic 
authorization  of  the  episcopacy  —  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  :  the  latter 
being  the  practical  embodiment  of  the  former,  the  former  the  ideal 
ground  of  the  latter. 

"  Now,  in  order  to  vindicate  the  doctrine  and  constitution  of  the 
Church  effectually  against  heresy,  they  must  above  all  things  be  based 
on  apostolic  tradition  atid  authority  ;  and  the  interests  of  the  Church 
imperatively  required  that  the  advocate  of  the  principle  of  authority 
should  publish  his  warnings  and  injunctions  in  the  name  of  that  apostle 
who  was  held  in  chief — indeed,  on  this  point,  in  sole  esteem  and  defer- 
ence,— that  is  to  say,  in  thenameof  Paul.  Strange  indeed,  and  tragical, 
that  the  apostle  of  freedom  has  at  last  been  enlisted  as  voucher  for  the 
principle  of  authority,  and  founder  of  the  hierarchy  !  But  if  there 
is  any  one  to  blame  for  this  pei-version,   it  must  be  no  other  than 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  yii 

Marcion,  who  by  his  ultra- Paulinism  forced  the  men  of  order  and  sound 
reason  >  into  this  awkward  position  I "  (pp.  822,  823. ) 

M'ith  Pfleiderer  at  present,  as  with  Baur  fifty  years  ago, 
the  deductions  of  this  school  against  the  authenticity  of  so 
many  New  Testament  writings  rest  upon  their  J  priori 
construction  of  the  histor>'  of  the  primitive  Church.  That 
construction  has  been  remodelled  in  Pfleiderer's  hands  ;  but 
in  principle  and  method  it  remains  the  same  as  when  first 
laid  down  by  Baur. 

No  judgment,  however,  that  we  might  form  respecting  the 
system  of  doctrine  and  Church  organization  indicated  in 
these  epistles,  whether  favourable  or  adverse  to  authenticity, 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  in  itself  decisive  upoy  this  point. 
The  data  for  such  a  judgment  must  be  gathered  from  an 
unprejudiced  examination  of  the  documents ;  and  they  are 
themselves  contingent  on  a  multitude  of  questions  of. 
language  and  circumstantial  detail,  which  need  to  be  first 
carefully  considered.  The  literary  character  of  the  epistles, 
and  the  personal  and  local  references  they  contain,  along 
with  the  external  attestation  to  their  origin,  supply  the  proof 
of  authorship  in  the  first  instance.  It  is  enough  if  the  ideas 
contained  in  the  letters  are  in  no  way  contradictor}'  to  the 
presumption  already  established.  At  the  same  time,  our 
inquiry  into  their  governing  ideas  and  aims  will,  as  we  hope, 
serve  more  than  a  merely  defensive  and  negative  purpose. 
We  shall  strive  to  show,  what  is  at  least  manifest  to  our- 
selves, that  the  teaching  of  the  Pastoral  epistles  and  the 
life  of  the  Church  as  therein  disclosed  stand  in  an  intimate, 
genetic  connexion  with  that  which  the  previous  and  ac- 
knowledged epistles  of  St.  Paul  present  to  us. 


*  This  explanation,  if  it  were  tnie,  throws  a  sad  light  on  the  character 
ot  "  the  men  of  order  and  sound  reason"  in  the  Clmrch  of  the  second 
century.  It  puts  the  Pastoral  epistles  on  a  level  with  the  pseudo- 
Isidorian  decretals.     Any  forger  could  plcatl  as  gootl  an  excuse. 


374  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


IV.  The  Doctrinal  Characteristics. 

In  reviewing  the  doctrine  of  the  Pastorals,  we  take  for  our 
starting  point  the  following  sentence  of  Holtzmann  (p.  159) : 

"  Tlie  ijeneral  basis  of  ideas  is  unquestionably  Pauline.  It  is  no 
other  doctrine  than  thai  of  Paul  which  these  writings  profess  and 
seek  to  expound.  But  the  bare  and  inipoveiished  form  of  this  repre- 
sentation betrays  its  unauthenticity.  Paul's  doctrinal  conceptions  are 
weakened  and  brought  down  to  the  level  of  a  later  age.  We  have 
before  us  a  diluted  P.aulinism,  accommodated  to  the  demands  of  an 
advanced  stage  of  Church  life,  ecclesiastically  modified  and  stereotyped, 
and  which  has  come  to  terms  with  Jewish  Christianity,  the  Paulinist 
and  Legalist  parties  being  at  length  compelled  to  join  hands  under  the 
pressure  of  Gnostic  and  heretical  assaults." 

So  far  a#this  "  impoverishment  "  of  the  true  Paulinism  is 
matter  of  expression,  we  have  discussed  it  already  (pp.  357, 
358).  As  a  description  of  the  theological  character 
of  the  epistles,  there  is  a  modicum  of  truth  involved  in 
Holtzmann's  depreciatory  estimate.  St.  Paul's  character- 
istic doctrines  do  not  here  assume  the  commanding  promi- 
nence given  to  them  in  the  major  epistles ;  they  are  not 
thrown  into  the  same  bold  relief,  nor  developed  with  the 
same  logical  completeness.  But  then  this  observation 
applies  equally  to  his  earliest  writings — the  two  epistles  to 
the  Thessalonians.  When  those  former  letters  were  written, 
the  Legalist  controversy,  which  occupied  the  central  period 
of  Paul's  apostleship  and  called  forth  the  mightiest  efforts 
of  his  genius,  had  not  yet  arisen ;  by  this  time  it  had  to 
a  large  extent  subsided.  The  doctrines  of  salvation  are 
quietly  assumed,  where  before  they  were  vehemently  argued 
and  defended.  For  they  constitute,  in  the  view  alike  of 
writer  and  readers,  a  conquest  securely  won,  a  foundation 
enduringly  laid.  But  in  this  matter-of-fact  assumption  they 
lose  nothing  of  their  cardinal  importance.  The  sentences 
in  which  they  are  affirmed  serve  to  re-state,  with  axiomatic 
weight  and  precision,  that  Gospel  which  is  to  Paul  and  his 
sons  in  the  faith  a  fundamental  certainty  (see  i  Tim.  ii. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  375 


4-6;  iii.  15,  16;  2  Tim.  i.  9,  10).  'Ihe  Tendency  critics 
are  untrue  to  their  own  principle  of  evolution  when  they 
assume  that  the  mind  of  Paul  stood  still,  that  he  could 
write  nothing  but  letters  after  the  manner  of  Romans  and 
Cialatians,  and  when  they  insist  upon  our  taking  these  great 
works  as  in  style  and  proportion  and  theological  purport 
the  sole  test  of  what  is  Pauline. 

Most  of  all  do  the  doctrinal  passages  of  the  epistle  to 
Titus  (i.  1-4;  ii.  10-14;  "••  3-?)  protest 'against  the  dis- 
paragement that  the  Pastorals  contain  a  half-effaced  and 
diluted  Paulinism.  These  luminous  apercus  of  the  method 
of  redemption  carry  it  backward  to  the  Divine  causation 
— "  which  (iod,  who  cannot  lie,  promised  before  times 
eternal " — and  forward  to  its  moral  operation,  and  its  issues 
in  the  life  beyond ;  while  they  describe  in  full  and  glowing 
language  the  agency  by  which  the  work  of  man's  renewal  is 
brought  about : 

"  We  were  senseless,  disol>edient,  wandering,  enslavetl  to  manifold 
lusts  and  pleasures.  But  when  the  kindness  and  philanthropy  of  God 
our  Saviour  appeared — not  by  works  done  in  righteousness,  which  we 
had  wrought,  but  according  to  His  mercy  He  saved  us,  through  the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
He  poured  on  us  richly  through  Jesu*  Christ  our  Saviour,  that  being 
justified  by  His  grace,  we  might  be  made  heirs  according  to  the  hope 
of  eternal  life." 

There  is  no  sign  of  poverty,  or  of  laboured  imitation,  in 
a  mind  whose  wealth  runs  over  in  this  way.  Here  there  is 
drawn  for  us,  in  a  mere  incidental  passage,  by  a  few  rapid 
strokes  of  the  pen,  a  picture  of  the  whole  Gospel  in 
miniature.  The  sayings  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  bring  the 
doctrines  of  grace  to  a  rounded  fulness  and  chastened  ripe- 
ness of  expression,  that  warrant  us  in  seeing  in  them  the 
authentic  conclusion  of  the  Pauline  gospel  of  salvation  in 
the  mind  which  first  conceived  it. 

It  is  impossible,  within  moderate  limits,  to  discuss  all  the 
points  in  which  Holtzmann  detects  a  difference  between 
the  teaching  of  the   Pastorals  and  that  of  the  genuine 


?76  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


epistles.  We  will  deal  with  the  most  consideral>le  of  the 
alleged  discrepancies,  and  those  which  alone  raise  any 
serious  difficulty:  (i)  Amongst  the  chief  is  that  touching 
the  nature  of  God.  The  Divine  character  and  agency  are 
set  forth  under  appellations  new  to  us  in  St.  Paul,  and 
some  of  them  unique.  He  is  the  "  King  of  the  ages, 
incorruptible,  invisible,  the  only  God  " ;  "  the  blessed  and 
only  Potentate,  the  King  of  kings,  and  T.ord  of  lords, 
who  alone  hath  immortality,  dwelling  in  light  unap- 
proachable, whom  none  of  men  hath  seen,  nor  can  see " 
(i  Tim.  i.  17;  vi.  15,  16);  "the  living  God,  who  is 
Saviour  of  all  men,"  and  "gives  life  to  all  things  "  (i  Tim. 
iv.  10;  vi.  13).  Six  times  does  the  expression  "God  (our) 
Saviour  "  recur  in  these  epistles,  found  but  twice  besides  in 
the  New  Testament  (Luke  i.  47  ;  Jude  26). 

The  emphasis  thus  laid  on  the  Divine  absoluteness  ha 
manifestly  a  polemical  intention.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to 
go  to  the  second  century  for  its  explanation.  The  clue  lies 
nearer  to  our  hand.  We  find  it  in  the  false  dualism,  current 
amongst  Hellenistic  Jews  in  St.  Paul's  time,  which  separated 
God  from  the  world  and  treated  the  material  creation  as 
the  work  of  inferior  and  intermediate  beings.  This  system 
of  theosophy,  the  daughter  of  Platonism  and  mother  of 
Gnosticism,  the  apostle  has  already  combated  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  dealing  with  it  there  chiefly  in  its  bearing 
on  the  Person  and  work  of  Christ.  Philo  of  Alexandria, 
Paul's  contemporary,  was  the  chief  exponent  of  this  doc- 
trine on  Jewish  ground.  He  represents  what  we  may  call 
the  Broad  Church  of  Judaism,  whose  influence  inevitably 
made  itself  felt  amongst  Pauline  Christians  at  a  very  early 
time.  Indeed  Gnosticism,  as  Dr.  Jowett  aptly  says,^  might 
be  described  as  "  the  mental  atmosphere  of  the  Greek  cities 
of  Asia,  a  conducting  medium  between  heathenism  and 
Christianity " ;   perhaps  we  might  say,   a  common  solvent 

'  CommenliW)'  on  l  Thessalonians,  second  cilitlon,  p.  94. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  377 

of  heathenism,  Judaism,  and  Christianity.  It  limited  the 
I'ivine  prerogatives,  confining  the  supreme  (iod,  under  a 
false  notion  of  reverence,  to  a  purely  spiritual  and  transcen- 
dental region.  Hence  (led  is  here  acknowledged  as  wield- 
ing in  unshared  dominion  all  creaturely  and  earthly  powers, 
while  in  His  own  nature  and  blessedness  He  holds  a  realm 
of  light  inaccessible  and  life  undecaying. 

The  dualism  of  the  earliest  Gnostics,  or  (inosticizing 
Judaists,  is  reproved  in  its  <7j<r//V  consequences  in  i  Timothy 
iv.  3-5,  where  marriage  and  physical  sustenance  are  vindi- 
cated as  things  of  the  Divine  order — "  sanctified  by  the 
word  of  God  and  prayer  "  (compare,  and  contrast  Col.  ii. 
20-23).  But  the  writer  condemns  the  false  spiritualism  of 
the  coming  "  latter  times  "  in  no  other  strain  than  we  should 
expect  from  the  Paul  of  i  Corinthians,  who  had  said,  "To 
us  there  is  but  one  (iod,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things 
and  we  for  Him  " — whose  is  "  earth  and  its  fulness  "  ;  and 
who  again  has  written,  "  The  woman  is  of  the  man,  and  the 
man  through  the  woman  ;  but  all  things  of  God." 

The  work  of  grace  is  placed  with  emphasis  in  the  hands 
of  God,  in  the  interests  of  the  Divine  unity,  and  in  tacit 
contradiction  to  those  who  "  professing  "  above  others  "  to 
know  God,"  yet  barred  Him  out  from  contact  with  human 
life,  and  so  robbed  Him  of  the  honours  of  salvation.  At 
the  same  time,  the  expression  has  an  intrinsic  fitness.  The 
apostle's  theology  proper,  his  doctrine  of  God,  resumes  and 
absorbs  his  soieriology.  His  systemof  thought  anticipates 
the  goal  marked  out  for  the  course  of  redemption — when 
"  God  shall  be  all  in  all "  (i  Cor.  xv.  28).     See  p.  338. 

(2)  "  The  image  of  Christ  presented  in  the  Pastorals  is 
indeed  composed  of  Pauline  formOlce,  but  it  is  lacking  in 
the  Pauline  spirit  and  feeling,  in  the  mystic  inwardness,  the 
religious  depth  and  moral  force  that  live  in  the  Christ  of 
Paul."  So  says  Schenkel,  quoted  by  Holtzmann  with 
approval  (pp.  166,  167).  Of  the  justice  of  this  stricture 
every  one  will  form  his  own  estimate.     It  apj^als  not  to 


378  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


the  critical  expert,  but  to  the  feehng  and  discernment  of 
the  devout  Christian  reader.  For  ourselves,  we  find  no 
defect,  either  of  depth  or  force,  in  such  a  sentence  as 
I  Timothy  ii,  5,  6,  with  its  conception  of  the  "one  mediator 
between  God  and  men,  Christ  Jesus,  who  is  man  ;  who 
gave  Himself  a  ransom  for  all — the  testimony  to  be  borne 
in  its  own  time  ; "  which,  moreover,  is  precisely  not  "  com- 
posed of  Pauline  formulae,"  for  Christ  is  here  called  mediator 
for  the  first  time  (comp.  Heb.  viii.  6,  etc).  Nor  are  his 
mysticism  and  religious  depth  at  all  to  seek  in  i  Timothy  iii. 
15,  16  (the  "mystery  of  godliness,  He  who  was  manifested 
in  the  flesh,"  etc.).  The  expression  "  in  Christ  Jesus,'" 
almost  peculiar  to  Paul,  and  which  carries  with  it  all  the 
inwardness  and  depth  of  his  sense  of  the  believer's  relation 
to  his  Lord,  is  employed  seven  times  in  the  two  letters  to 
Timothy  in  application  to  Christian  acts  and  states. 

It  is  said  that  the  emphasis  thrown  upon  the  Divine 
*'  manifestation  "  and  the  "  appearing  "  (eVK^avcia)  of  Christ 
(i  Tim.  iii,  16;  2  Tim.  i.  10;  Tit.  ii.  13;  iii.  4)  "is  a  sign 
of  later  Gnostic  influence."  But  in  i  and  2  Thessalonians 
similar  language  is  used  of  the  second  advent  of  Christ ; 
and  in  2  Corinthians  iv.  4,  6,  touching  His  first  appearance. 
These  expressions,  in  truth,  reflect  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
manifestation  of  Jesus  made  to  Saul  on  the  Damascus  road. 
In  a  form  of  like  splendour  Paul  pictures  to  himself  the 
Saviour's  reappearance.  It  is  the  Gnostics  who  have 
borrowed  their  language  from  our  New  Testament  writings 
— not  the  latter  from  the  former. 

The  Parousia  forms  a  significant  link  between  the  earliest 
and  latest  of  the  apostle's  letters.  It  is,  in  a  sense,  his  Alpha 
and  Omega.  But  a  change  has  supervened  in  his  view  of 
the  event.  It  is  still  to  him,  and  more  than  ever,  "  that 
blessed  hope  and  appearing  of  the  glory  of  our  great  God  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ"  (Tit.  ii.  13) ;  but  he  no  longer  speaks 
of  it  in  the  terms  of  personal  anticipation  that  we  find  in 
I  Thessalonians  and  i  Corinthians  xv.     For  he  has  recon- 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  379 


ciled  himself,  as  already  in  2  Corinthians  v.,  to  the  fact  that 
he  must  pass  away  by  death  before  the  Lord's  return.  He 
rejoices  to  feel  that  "  the  time  of  his  departure  is  come ' 
(2  Tim.  iv.  6).  He  has  learnt  increasingly  to  see  in  the 
inward  victories  of  the  Christian  life  and  the  "  earnest  of 
the  Spirit  in  our  hearts"  (Rom.  viii.  11-23;  Eph-  i-  i3>  M) 
the  pledge  of  the  believer's  final  glorification.  Though 
the  Parousia  ceases  to  occupy  the  immediate  foreground  of 
the  apostle's  outlook,  it  is  no  less  certainly  in  prospect,  and 
has  become  a  vision  yet  more  splendid  to  the  eyes  of  his 
heart.  Meanwhile,  the  intervening  future  grows  more 
distinct,  in  its  darker  as  well  as  its  brighter  aspects.  "  Evil 
men  and  impostors  will  wax  worse  and  worse,  deceiving 
and  being  deceived"  (2  Tim.  iii.  13)  The  second  coming 
"  furnishes  the  shining  background  for  the  gloomy  picture 
of  the  troublous  last  times  ^^  (Holtzmann,  p.  188 ;  see  i  Tim, 
v.  I  ;  2  Tim.  iii.  i  ;  iv.  3,  4).  In  all  directions  the  horizon 
is  threatening,  and  the  air  thick  with  the  sense  of  .coming 
trouble.  The  predictions  of  these  epistles  only  give  greater 
distinctness  to  forebodings  already  expres.sed  by  Paul  in 
Acts  XX.  29-31,  and  elsewhere. 

On  the  other  hand,  their  representations  of  present  or 
impending  conflict  differ,  both  in  colouring  and  proportion, 
from  any  picture  furnished  by  the  age  of  Marcion  and 
Justin  Martyr.  It-  is  superfluous  to  discuss  the  identifica- 
tions offered  to  us ;  for  they  contradict  each  other,  and 
every  new  critic  fixes  on  a  type  of  Cnosticism  different  from 
the  last.  Holtzmann  and  Pfleiderer  themselves  so  far  fail 
in  the  attempt,  that  they  are  compelled  to  assume  an 
artificial  infusion  into  the  supposed  polemic  against  Mar- 
cionite  heresy  of  elements  drawn  from  St.  Paul's  time,  such 
as  would  have  made  the  attack  confused  and  ineffective  for 
the  end  for  which  they  imagine  it  designed. 

When  "  Christ  Jesus  "  appears  in  i  Timothy  v.  21  (comp, 
2  Tim.  iv.  i)  accompanied  by  "the  elect  angels,"  it  is 
because  He  is  thought  of  as  in  2  Thessalonians  i.  7  (comp 


38o  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

Luke  ix.  26)  as  the  future  Judge  of  men.  The  connexion 
of  thought  resembles  that  of  2  Corinthians  v.  10,  11,  where 
the  sense  of  his  present  "■  manifestation  to  God  "  carries  the 
apostle's  mind  onward  to  the  scene  of  his  future  appearance 
at  "the  tribunal  of  Christ." 

In  these  latest  epistles,  the  eschatology  of  the  earliest 
reappears,  viewed  however  through  a  longer  perspective,  and 
enriched  by  the  deeper  Christology  of  the  intervening  letters. 

(3)  In  regard  to  the  writer's  attitude  toward  the  great 
Pauline  antithesis  of  la7ii  and  grace,  the  crucial  text  is 
I  Timothy  i.  8-1 1  : — 

"We  know  that  the  law  is  good,  if  one  use  it  lawfully.  ... 
Law  is  not  imposed  for  a  righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless,  etc., 
.  .  .  and  whatsoever  else  is  contrai-y  to  the  sound  teaching,  accord- 
ing to  the  gospel  of  the  gloiy  of  the  blessed  God,  with  which  I  was 
entnisted." 

This  passage,  as  Holtzmann  allows,  belongs  to  "  the 
writers  general  standpoint,"  and  cannot  be  dismissed  as  a 
mere  polemical  stroke  against  the  Marcionites  (p.  160). 
But  the  standpoint  is  that  of  Paul  himself,  the  same  which 
he  asserted  in  Romans  and  Galatians.  The  "  lawful  use  " 
of  the  law  consists  in  its  giving  '•  the  knowledge  of  sin," 
by  "  making  the  offence  to  abound  "  and  so  "  working  out 
wrath."  It  was  added  "for  the  sake  of  transgressions." 
Hence  it  is  designed  "  for  the  lawless  and  unruly  " — to 
mark  and  condemn  them  as  such ;  while  the  truly  "righteous 
man"  is  "not  under  law,  but  under  grace."  This  is  "ac- 
cording to  the  gospel  '*  of  Paul's  great  evangelical  epistles ; 
and  "  knowing "  it,  Timothy  will  know  how  to  "  use  the 
law,"  not  in  Jewish  fashion  as  a  yoke  for  the  saint,  but  as 
a  whip  for  the  sinner.  This  passage  negatives  at  the  outset 
Schleiermacher's  assertion,  that  "  the  author  of  i  Timothy 
silently  passes  over  the  chief  position  advanced  by  Paul 
against  the  Judnistic  standpoint." 

When  we  read  in  Titus  ii.  14  of  Christ's  sacrifice  as 
"  ransoming    us  from  all   laiHcssJicss,^'    this  complements 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  381 

instead  of  contradicting  St.  Paul's  earlier  watchword  of 
redemption  "from  the  curse  oi  the  law"((ial.  iii.  10-14); 
for  lawlessness,  if  it  does  not  actually  constitute  that  curse, 
is  its  cause  and  concomitant.  A  redemption  saving  from 
sin's  punishment,  but  not  from  sin,  is  obviously  illusive. 
In  fact,  we  are  here  carried  forward,  along  the  line  ot 
Romans  vi.,  from  the  idea  of  justification  as  mere  acquittal 
to  its  positive  issue  in  the  new  law-keeping,  but  not  law- 
subject,  life  of  the  believer.  In  the  unique  and  Paul-like 
compound  ttiTiAvrpoi/  {ransom-price),  of  i  Timothy  ii.  6,  the 
New  Testament  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  sacrifice  culminates. 
This  word  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  the  first  epistle  to 
Timothy  immortal.  In  vain  does  Holtzmann  speak  of  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  Christ — "these  two  facts  of 
central  importance,  in  Paul's  view,  for  the  Christian  con- 
sciousness " — as  "  receiving  but  cursory  reference  "  (p.  1 7o\ 
The  three  epistles  are  steeped  in  their  influence.  As  well 
argue  that  the  author  of  Galatians  thought  little  of  the 
resurrection,  because  in  that  letter  he  happens  only  once, 
and  in  passing,  to  make  verbal  mention  of  it ! 

It  is  more  to  the  purpose  when  our  critic  observes  (p.  169) 
that  in  these  writings  the  Church  rather  than  the  individual 
is  the  recipient  of  the  blessings  of  salvation,  and  when  he 
sees  in  this  a  link  between  the  Pastorals  and  Ephesians  ^ 
(comp.  Tit.  ii.  14  with  Eph.  v.  25-27).  The  writer's  mind 
dwells  mainly  on  the  general  and  collective  aspects  of  the 
Gospel.  He  is  thinking  not  so  much  of  Him  "  who  loved 
me  and  gave  Himself  up  for  t/u"  as  of  "  the  philanthropy 
of  God  our  Saviour."  And  his  repeated  assertion  of  the 
universalism  of  the  Gospel  is  opposed  not,  as  in  Romans  iii. 
29,  30,  to  Jewish  exclusiveness  of  race,  but  to  the  Gnosti- 
cizing  pride  that  reserved  the  knowledge  of  God  to  the 
initiated  few.    This  narrow  and  vain  intellectualism  was  just 


*  Holtzmann,  and  the  school  of  Baur  generally,  continue  to  reject 
this  latter  with  the  former  as  Pauline  epistles.  Not  so,  however, 
M.  Sabatier  ;  see  pp.  229-234  above. 


382  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

now  the  greatest  danger  of  the  Church,  sure  to  be  the 
parent  of  a  brood  of  errors  and  corruptions  ;  it  struck  at 
what  is  most  vital  to  Christianity,  in  God's  universal  grace 
to  mankind;  and  the  apostle's  detection  of  the  evil  and  his 
determined  opposition  to  it  were  already  manifest  in  the 
epistles  of  the  second  group  (Col.  i.  28  ;  ii.  3,  8,  18,  19  ; 
Eph.  i.  17,  18  ;  iii.  9). 

In  this  connexion  we  can  better  understand  the  principle 
laid  down  in  2  Timothy  ii.  19-21,  that  whatever  "  vessel " 
in  the  "great  house"  is  "purified  from  unrighteousness,"  is 
a  "  vessel  unto  honour,"  being  "  sanctified  "  and  therefore 
"  useful  to  the  Master."  For  it  is  holiness  of  character,  not 
mere  "knowledge,"  often  "falsely  so  called,"  that  qualifies 
the  vessels  of  the  Lord.  Holtzmann,  however,  can  only  see 
in  this  definition  "  a  characteristic  complement  to  Paul's 
notion  of  Predestination,  supplying  an  ethical  content  to  the 
decretum  absoluturn,"  which  in  Romans  is  matter  of  pure 
sovereignty  (p.  172).  Yet  in  Romans  ix.  22  there  is  implied 
in  the  "vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction"  a  like 
ethical  content  to  that  found  in  these  "vessels  of  dis- 
honour.'" It  is  not  to  the  Pastorals  that  we  have  first  to 
look  in  order  to  find  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  election  balanced 
and  safeguarded  by  the  assertion  of  man's  responsibility. 
Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  absoluteness  of  the  Divine 
initiative  in  the  work  of  salvation  at  all  sacrificed  in  our 
epistles.  God's  "  purpose  and  grace "  are  held  forth,  in 
opposition  to  "  our  works,"  as  the  moving  cause  of  re- 
demption (2  Tim.  i.  9  ;  Tit.  iii.  5)  as  strongly  as  in  Romans 
or  Ephesians,  and  with  an  unction  and  empressement  entirely 
Pauline. 

(4)  A  higher  sacramental  doctrifu  than  that  of  the  genuine 
Paul  is  detected  in  Titus  iii.  5  (Holtzmann,  p.  172).  We 
might  agree  with  the  critic  on  this  point,  if,  with  Ellicott  and 
others,  following  the  Vulgate,  we  construed  "  renewal  of  the 
Holy  Spirit "  in  dependence  upon  "  laver "  (the  Greek 
genitive  is  here  ambiguous).     But  the  alternative  rendering 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  3S3 

of  Bengal,  Alford,  and  Hofmann  is  decidedly  preferable. 
The  laver  {washiir^^  A.V.)  of  regeneration  and  rencival  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  two  conjoint  though  distinct  agencies. 
This  text  echoes  our  Lord's  great  dictum  on  the  new  birth 
"  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit "  (John  iii.  5),  and  makes  the 
same  distinction  between  the  outward  or  symbolic  and  the 
inward  and  essential  means  of  Divine  renewal.  So  the 
passage  brings  to  a  focus  what  we  have  already  learnt  con- 
cerning Baptism  from  Romans  vi.  1-6;  Galatians  iii.  27; 
Colossians  ii.  12;  Ephesians  v.  26,  where  it  represents  and 
gives  a  name  to  that  entire  change  in  the  Christian  be- 
liever, of  which  it  is  the  divinely  appointed  token. 

There  is  one  rite,  however,  which  we  meet  here  for  the 
first  time  in  the  Pauline  epistles — that  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands  (i  Tim.  iv.  14  ;  v.  22  ;  2  Tim.  i.  6).  It  is  the  means 
of  conveying  special  endowments  of  grace  {charismata)^  be- 
stowed on  individual  men  to  fit  them  for  their  special  voca- 
tion in  the  Church.  There  is  nothing  new,  or  foreign  to 
St.  Paul,  in  the  elements  of  this  conception.  The  idea  of 
the  "charism"  is  perfectly  familiar  (see  Rom.  xii.  6,  etc.). 
And  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  shows  (viii.  17-19,  etc.)  that 
this  form  of  ordination— an  ancient  and  expressive  Jewish 
custom — belonged  to  the  earliest  times  of  the  Church. 
That  no  magical  efficacy  is  attributed  to  the  rite  is  evident 
from  the  words  of  the  epistles  :  "  The  charism  that  is  in 
thee,  .  .  .  given  thee  through  prophecy,  with  laying 
on  of  the  presbytery's  hands  "  ;  again,  "  the  charism  of 
God  that  is  in  thee,  through  the  laying  on  of  my  hands." 
The  essence  of  the  matter  does  not  lie  in  the  particular 
official  hands  that  ministered  in  Timothy's  ordination ;  but 
the  grace  was  (iod's  immediate  and  inward  bestowment, 
attested  by  the  voice  of  His  Spirit  in  the  Church,  then 
sealed  and  acknowledged  on  the  Church's  part  in  the  ap- 
propriate form. 

These  writings  are  also  said  to  teach  a  higher  doctrine  of 
inspiration  than  is  found  in  the  undisputed  epistles.     Baur 


384  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


discovered  in  2  Timothy  iii.  14-17  a  covert  attack  on  Mar- 
cion  (who  rejected  the  Old  Testament),  and  an  attempt  to 
rehabihtate  the  Law  in  the  face  of  second-century  Gnosti- 
cism. "  The  sacred  writings^'  it  is  said,  "  are  silently 
contrasted  with  the  oral  traditions  current  in  the  Gnostic 
sects ;  and  the  phrase  '  all  Scripture  '  protests  against  the 
arbitrary  use  made  by  heretics  of  certain  parts  of  it." 
Granting  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation,  it  is  quite 
appropriate  to  the  apostle's  time.  Theorists  such  as  the 
false  teachers  of  Colossae  were  sure  to  neglect  the  practical 
and  moral  parts  of  Scripture.  It  is  the  vanity  and  use- 
lessness  of  the  teaching  broached  by  the  men  whom 
Timothy  and  Titus  are  to  oppose  that  the  writer  stigma- 
tizes, rather  than  anything  positively  false  or  corrupting 
in  it  (see  i  Tim.  i.  4,  6;  vi.  3-5;  2  Tim.  ii.  16,  23; 
Tit.  i.  10-14).  Iri  this  "vain  jangling,"  however,  he  sees 
the  germ  and  beginnings  of  the  most  fatal  moral  errors 
(i  Tim.  iv.  1-3;  2  Tim.  ii.  17,  18;  iii.  1-9,  13;  iv.  3), 
a  mischief  of  unlimited  potency,  that  "will  wax  worse 
and  worse ; "  for  this  evil  Scripture  affords  the  true  and 
sufficient  remedy.  The  "  fables  and  endless  genealogies," 
"  Jewish  fables,"  etc.,  on  which  these  letters  pour  contempt, 
were  the  stock-in-trade  of  men  versed  in  the  allegorical 
method,  and  who  practised  a  puerile  and  speculative  treat- 
ment of  inspired  Scripture.  So  the  occasion  has  come  to 
formulate  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  implicit  throughout 
St.  Paul's  teaching  (se6  specially  Rom.  xv.  4,  and  i  Cor. 
X.  ii).  That  doctrine  exhibits  in  the  words  "through 
faith  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  "  its  specially  Pauline  stamp  and 
character. 

Baur  and  Holtzmann  fail  to  convince  us  that  the  second 
saying  of  i  Timothy  v.  18  ("  The  workman  is  worthy  of  his 
hire")  is  quoted  as  "Scripture,"  on  a  footing  with  the  Old 
Testament,  from  a  written  Gospel.  Indeed  such  quotation 
would  be  scarcely  more  probable  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  than  in  the  apostle  Paul's  own  time. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  385 

(5)  The  critics  note  throughout  these  letters  "aretteat 
of  the  one-sided  religious  interest  of  former  Pauline 
epistles  in  favour  of  a  more  ethical  coiiception  of  the  purpose 
of  life"  (Holtzmann  p.  172).  This  obser\ation,  apart  from 
the  colouring  of  censure  conveyed  in  its  terms,  is  true 
enough.  Only  what  Holtzmann  calls  "a  retreat"  we  should 
describe  as  an  advance.  Evangelical  doctrine,  now  estab- 
lished and  consolidated,  is  applied  on  all  sides  to  the  practi- 
cal conduct  of  life.  "The  grace  of  (lod"  which  "appeared" 
in  Christ,  "  bringing  salvation  to  all  men,"  has  developed  a 
new  moral  discipline  (TraiSci'ofo-a,  Tit.  ii.  12).  The  religious 
principle  of  Paulinism,  instead  of  being  "  sacrificed "  to 
moral  objects,  realizes  in  them  its  living  effect,  the  "  fruits  " 
by  which  its  truth  and  worth  are  evidenced.  Such  passages 
as  Romans  xii.  i;  2  Corinthians  vii.  i  ;  2  Thessalonians  i.  11, 
contain  in  germ  all  that  is  unfolded  in  the  detailed  ethical 
instruction  of  later  epistles.^ 

"  Righteousness,''  says  Holtzmann  (pp.  174,  175),  appears 
in  I  Timothy  vi.  11  ;  2  Timothy  ii.  22  ;  "as  a  virtue  to  be 
sought  after,"  instead  of  being,  in  the  specially  Pauline 
sense,  "  a  peculiar  relation  to  God."  But  this  is  equally 
the  case  in  Romans  vi.  18,  20  ;  2  Corinthians  ix.  10  ;  on 
the  other  hand,  gratuitous  justification  is  unequivocally  as- 
serted in  the  Pastoral  epistles  (Tit.  iii.  7,  etc.).  The  bond 
connecting  the  religious  and  moral  is  never  broken  by  the 
apostle  in  his  employment  of  this  cardinal  term  of  his  theo- 
logy. The  righteousness  of  imputation  he  always  conceived 
as  the  basis  of  a  new  actual  righteousness  of  life  and  be- 
haviour (see  Sabatier,  p.  300).  Holtzmann  repeats  this 
objection,  which  he  regards  as  of  decisive  weight,  when  he 
declares  (p.  175)  that  "there  is  no  room  for  justification  in 
the  Pauline  meaning,  where  salvation  is  made  to  depend, 
as  in  I  Timothy  iv.  6,  16,  vi.  14;  Titus  i.  9,  on  the  careful 

'  The  *•  separation  of  dogma  and  morality  "  alleged  by  M.  S.ibatitr 
(pp.  271,  272},  we  fail  to  rec'ignise. 

25 


3^6  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

observance  of  traditional  doctrine."  In  reply  to  this,  it  is 
enough  to  say  that  the  stricture  applies  with  equal  force  to 
such  passages  as  2  Thessalonians  ii.  15  ;  Romans  vi.  17  ; 
or  I  Corinthians  xv.  i,  2.  In  every  case  "doctrine"  and 
"tradition'"  are  the  means  of  continued  salvation,  inasmuch 
as  they  supply  the  objective  basis  of  a  continued  faith. 

(6)  But  it  is  after  all  in  the  religious  rather  than  the 
ethical  effect  of  salvation  that  the  interest  of  the  Pastoral 
epistles  centres.  The  Christian  "  profession "  is,  in  one 
•word,  "godliness"  (i  Tim.  ii.  9,  10;  Of.o(Tf.^da  "reverence 
for  God  " — one  of  the  unique  expressions  of  the  Pastorals), 
of  which  "  good  works  "  are  the  "  fitting  ornament."  Chris- 
tianity is  "  the  truth  "  or  "  the  doctrine  according  to  godli- 
ness." Fourteen  times  is  the  noun  eiVe/Jeta,  or  its  congeners, 
employed  in  the  three  epistles,  while  it  occurs  not  once 
(except  in  the  tiegaiive  in  Romans)  in  any  other  writings  of 
St.  Paul.  This  remarkable  fact  is  due  to  the  cause  that  we 
noted  at  the  outset.  The  apostle's  teaching  about  God  and 
about  godliness  come  into  like  prominence.  It  was  not  so 
much  the  way  of  salvation,  it  was  not  so  much  the  Person 
of  Christ,  nor  even  the  moral  practice  of  Christianity  that 
was  endangered  by  the  pretended  "knowledge"  of  the 
new  Judaists,  with  their  "fables"  and  "logomachies"; 
religion  itself  was  at  stake.  The  theories  which  separated 
God  from  nature  and  body  from  spirit  were  fatal  to  piety. 
They  tended  to  dissolve  the  religious  conception  of  life,  to 
destroy  godliness  and  virtue — "  faith  and  a  good  conscience  " 
■ — both  at  one  stroke  (see  i  Tim.  iv.  1-5  ;  vi.  3-5). 

With  such  dangers  present  to  his  mind,  and  likely  to 
grow  in  force  and  seductiveness  in  the  future,  the  aged 
apostle  bends  all  his  efforts  to  guard  and  strengthen  ihe 
spirit  of  religion.  His  exhortations  to  Timothy,  and  his 
injunctions  to  both  his  helpers  touching  their  conduct  of 
Church  affairs,  bear  with  concentrated  urgency  upon  this 
one  essential.  The  appeal,  while  it  springs  from  the  pro- 
found piety  of  St.  Paul's  own  nature,  is  foreshadowed  by 


TH£  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  387 

such  passages  as  Romans  i.  18;  v.  6,  where  sin  is  "  un- 
godliness"; so  Colossians  ii.  18,  23,  condemning  false  and 
superstitious  notions  of  worship ;  and  Ephesians  iv.  24, 
which  combines  "  righteousness  and  piety  (coming)  of  the 
truth  "  as  the  leading  dispositions  of  the  "  new  man."  Just 
as  we  found  that  Paul's  doctrines  of  grace  had  enriched  his 
views  of  the  Divine  nature,  so  they  appear  to  have  deepened 
and  enlarged  his  conception  of  worship  (i  Tim.  ii.  1-8),  and 
his  sense  of  the  part  which  reverence  plays  in  sanctifying 
human  life. 

To  the  same  causes,  increased  perhaps  in  their  effect 
by  the  writer's  advanced  age,  we  may  refer  the  stress  that 
is  laid  in  these  letters  on  "  sobriety  "  and  decorum  of  be- 
haviour. We  note,  too,  in  this  connexion  the  admiration 
expressed  for  a  "quiet  and  gentle  life"  (i  Tim.  ii.  2).  These 
preferences  are  by  no  means  new  features  in  St.  Paul's 
character  (see  i  Thess.  iv.  11,  12  :  i  Cor,  xi.  2,  16 ;  xiv.  33, 
40) ;  but  they  receive  new  emphasis. 

In  general,  it  is  in  "  the  other  conditions,  partly  com- 
bined with  and  partly  substituted  for  faith,"  that  Holtzmann 
sees  "  the  mediating  and  catholicizing  character  of  these 
epistles,  their  smoothed  and  softened  Paulinism,  made  most 
apparent"  (p.  179).  We  should  lose,  in  truth,  some  of  the 
most  precious  lessons  of  the  Pastorals  if  we  did  not  observe 
this  combination,  if  we  failed  to  note  the  frequency  of  such 
expressions  as  faith  and  love,  faith  and  truth,  faith  and  a 
good  conscience ;  love,  faith,  and  purity  ;  godliness,  faith, 
love,  etc.  But  the  just  induction  from  these  varied  com- 
binations is  not  that  "  faith  "  has  lost  its  supremacy  and  is 
merged  in  "  other  conditions,"  but  that  these  are  its  accom- 
paniments and  the  guarantees  of  its  reality.  On  this  point, 
I  Timothy  i.  5  is  instructive  :  "  faith  unfeigned  "  is  made 
the  ultimate  source  of  the  "  love  "  which  is  "  the  end  of  the 
charge  " — that  is  to  say,  the  goal  of  all  practical  Christian 
teaching.  This  is  nothing  else  than  the  "faith  working 
through  love"  of  Galatians  v.  6,  in  ampler  phrase.    In  other 


3?8  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

places  "  faith  "  stands  alone,  as  the  basis  of  Christian  ex- 
perience and  life  (i  Tim.  i.  2  ;  iii.  1352  Tim.  iii.  15  ;  iv. 
7).  Weiss  and  EUicott  rightly  refuse  to  recognise  in  these 
epistles  the  ecclesiastical  notion  of  the  Udes  qicam  credimus, 
the  substitution  of  the  content  or  object  of  faith  for  its 
subjective  exercise.  2  Thessalonians  ii.  12,  13  presents  the 
same  antithesis  of  "  faith  "  and  "  truth  "  as  subjective  and 
objective  counterparts,  that  we  find  in  i  Timothy  ii.  7  ;  iv. 
3,  6.  It  is  singular  that  faith  is  spoken  of  oftener,  propor- 
tionately, in  these  than  in  any  other  of  the  epistles,  except 
Galatians.  Grace  and  Faith  form  the  double  seal  by  which 
the  apostle  stamps  these  writings  as  his  own.  No  one  could 
imitate  his  accent,  or  reproduce  by  artifice  the  vivid  and 
delicate  sensibility  with  which  these  master  words  of  Paul's 
gospel  are  employed  in  the  letters  to  Timothy  and  Titus. 

(7)  Once  more  let  us  listen  to  Dr.  Holtzmann.  "  Prac- 
tical piety,"  he  says,  "and  correct  doctrine  form  the  two 
poles,  equally  dominant,"  of  the  Pastoral  epistles  (p.  183). 
The  latter  of  these  two  dominant  notes  he  connects  with 
"the  growing  churchliness "  of  the  second  century,  under 
whose  influence  Christianity  comes  to  be  called  "  doctrine  " 
(Tit.  ii.  10),  and  Christ  assumes  mainly  the  role  of  Teacher. 
The  preaching  of  the  Gospel  takes  a  conventional  form;  and 
in  its  conflict  with  heretical  theories  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus  stiffens  into  a  system  of  authoritative  dogma.  If 
orthodoxy  is  not  yet  known  by  name,  the  idea  of  it  is  there  ; 
and  the  opdoToixftv  of  2  Timothy  ii.  15  comes  next  door  to 
the  word  itself. 

This  contention,  in  substance,  we  admit.  The  question 
is,  whether  such  a  phenomenon  was  possible  in  the  later 
apostolic  age.  To  us  it  seems  inevitable.  The  conserva- 
tism of  "  such  an  one  as  Paul  the  aged,"  if  he  lived  until 
the  middle  of  the  seventh  Christian  decade,  was  sure  to 
take  this  shape.  Looking  back  on  the  pathway  which  his 
thought  has  trodden  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  on  the 
completed  teaching  of  his  life,  he  puts  his  final  seal  upon  it, 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  389 


in  face  of  the  denials  and  perversions  to  which  it  was  already, 
and  would  be  increasingly  and  on  many  sides  exposed.  Such 
a  certification  seems  even  necessary  to  the  ideal  complete- 
ness of  SL  Paul's  theological  work.  From  the  first  he  has 
sought  to  give  to  his  teaching  a  well-defined  form  ;  and  from 
the  first  he  has  claimed  for  it  unqualified  authority.  The 
"  type  of  doctrine  "  into  which  the  Roman  believers  had 
"  been  delivered,"  and  which  they  had  "  obeyed  from  the 
heart  "  (Rom.  vi.  17),  was  a  definite  and  settled  creed,  like 
the  "  form  of  sound  words,"  the  "  sound  doctrine,"  the 
"  faithful  word  according  to  the  teaching,"  on  which  this 
writer  expatiates ;  and  it  becomes  '*  sound  doctrine  "  be- 
cause, and  so  soon  as,  in  other  quarters  corruption  and 
disease  have  taken  hold  of  it.  These  expressions  of  the 
Pastorals  only  gather  up  and  reaffirm  the  assertions  made 
in  regard  to  particular  doctrines  in  St.  Paul's  previous  con- 
troversial epistles.  The  "  anathema  "  of  Galatians  i.  7-9 
is  a  vehement  affirmation  of  the  dogmatic  principle  (comp. 
Rom.  xvi.  17  ;  i  Cor.  xiv.  37  ;  xv.  i-ii  ;  Eph.  iv.  14  ;  Col. 
i.  6,  7  ;  Phil.  iii.  15,  16;  2  Thess.  ii.  15). 

Now  that  his  teaching  has  become  the  recognised  creed 
of  a  great  community,  it  is  natural  that  Paul  should  speak 
of  himself  as  "apostle  according  to  the  faith  of  God's  elect " 
(Tit.  i.  i).  Himself  "ready  to  be  offered  up,"  with  his 
battle  fougTit  and  his  course  run,  the  apostle's  chief  remain- 
ing care  is  that  he  may  see  the  great  "  deposit "  committed 
into  faithful  and  worthy  hands.  He  desires  to  leave  behind 
him  in  the  Churches  he  has  founded  a  community  so  well 
ordered  and  equipped,  so  rooted  and  built  up  in  Christ  and 
possessed  by  His  Spirit,  that  it  shall  be  for  all  time  to  come 
a  "  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."  In  the  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  as  Holtzmann  points  out  (p.  187),  the  step  had 
been  completed  by  which  Paulinism  passed  from  the  idea 
of  the  local  to  that  of  the  oecumenical  Church.  To  the 
Christian  society  thus  fully  constituted,  is  committed  the 
"mystery  of  godliness"  now  fully  revealed.     There  rises 


393  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


before  the  mind  of  the  dying  apostle  the  image  of  a  uni- 
versal Church,  to  which  is  entrusted  for  the  salvation  of  all 
men  the  charge  of  that  Gospel  long  ago  imparted  to  him- 
self by  Christ  Jesus  his  Lord.  Such  is  the  situation  which 
the  last  group  of  the  Pauline  epistles  exhibit.  Does  it  not 
hear  the  marks  of  historical  and  psychological  reality  ? 

Thus  we  pass  from  the  thought  of  the  "great  house," 
unfolded  in  the  Ephesian  letter,  to  that  of  the  "'  vessels  "  of 
its  service,  their  qualities  and  uses,  and  the  solemn  respon- 
sibilities which  accrue  to  them.  Their  worth  Hes  in  the 
greatness  of  the  Church  they  serve ;  and  hers  in  the  great- 
ness of  the  truth  she  holds  in  trust  for  mankind. 


V.   The  Church  Systeini  of  the  Pastorals. 

We  are  now,  therefore,  as  we  hope,  in  a  position  to 
appreciate  the  peculiar  features  of  the  Church  order  and 
organization  set  before  us  in  the  Pastoral  epistles,  and  so 
to  complete  the  task  proposed  in  this  inquiry. 

To  promote  "  godliness  "  and  "  sound  doctrine  "  is  the 
leading  object  of  these  letters.  This  purpose  dictates  the 
qualifications  laid  down  in  i  Timothy  iii.  and  Titus  i.  for 
ministerial  office ;  and  it  accounts  for  the  fact  that  these 
conditions  are  so  nearly  alike  for  bishops  (or  presbyters) 
and  for  deacons : 

"  The  bishop  must  be  without  reproach,  husband  of  one  wife,  sober, 
sensible,  orderly,  hospitable,  apt  to  teach,  ,  .  .  gentle,  peaceable, 
ree  from  the  love  of  money  .  .  .  Deacons  in  like  maimer  must  be 
grave  .  .  .  not  double-tongued,  not  given  to  wine,  nor  seeking 
base  gain,  holding  the  mysterj'  of  faith  in  a  pure  conscience." 

These  instructions,  on  the  face  of  them,  are  not  intended 
as  an  exhaustive  description  of  what  the  bishop  and  deacon 
should  be.  They  scarcely  look  beyond  the  moral  qualities 
of  an  ordinary,  reputable  Christian  man.  But  it  is  just 
here,  in  their  commonplace  and  unambitious  character,  that 
the  point  of  the  specifications  lies.     To  the  need  of  other, 


THE  r AS  TOR  A  L  EPISTLES.  301 

more  shining  gifts  the  Churches  were  sufficiently  alive. 
What  the  apostle  insists  upon  is  that  solid,  moral  qualities 
shall  not  be  overlooked,  nor  taken  for  granted  in  any  case 
without  strict  inquiry.  The  danger  was  lest  talent  and 
cleverness  should  carry  the  day,  and  the  leadership  of  the 
Church  fall  into  the  hands  of  men  deficient  in  the  elements 
of  a  worthy  Christian  character.  The  enemy  had  sown  his 
tares  among  the  wheat  of  Christ's  field.  The  discrepancy 
between  the  actual  and  ideal  Church  was  already  painfully 
manifest  (2  Tim.  ii.  19-21).  Self-seeking  teachers  had  in- 
sinuated themselves  into  the  Christian  societies,  who  knew 
how  to  impose  on  the  credulous  or  unstable  by  their  show 
of  learning  and  asceticism  (i  Tim.  i.  6,  7  ;  iv.  1-3  ;  vi.  3-10). 
Entrance  into  the  ministry  must  be  barred  to  such  candi- 
dates as  these  ;  and  officers  must  be  chosen  whose  character 
commanded  the  respect  of  the  community,  and  who  would 
be  likely  to  exert  a  wholesome  and  steadying  influence  on 
the  Church's  life,  at  a  time  of  transition  and  feverish  unrest. 
Kiihl  very  aptly  says  : 

"The  prescriptions  of  these  epistles  bear  throughout  an  eminently 
practical  stamp,  and  find  their  characteristic  expression  in  the  exhorta- 
tion to  Timothy  :  Be  thou  a  pattern  of  the  helir.'ers.  The  false  intel- 
lectualism  of  the  errorists  is  traced  to  their  want  of  practical  piety  ;  and 
this  tvae^eia,  this  open  sense  for  the  divine,  has  in  turn  its  practical 
moral  guarantee  in  a  Christianly  moral  life.  .Such  piety  it  is  the  aim 
of  these  writings,  in  their  whole  tenor,  to  quicken  and  renew.'' 

If  godliness  was  the  chief  desideratum  for  the  Church  at 
large,  so  much  the  more  was  it  essential  to  the  official 
ministry.  This  anxiety  on  the  apostle's  part  is  in  profound 
accord  with  the  sentiments  that  he  always  cherished  con- 
cerning his  own  position  as  a  minister  of  Christ. 

"  Our  glorying  is  this,  the  testimony  of  our  conscience  that  in  holi- 
ness and  sincerity  of  God  we  have  had  our  conversation  in  the  world. 
.  ■  .  .  In  all  things  commending  ourselves  as  ministei-s  of  God  :  in 
pureness,  in  knowledge,  in  long-suffering,  in  kindness,  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  love  unfeigned, — by  the  armour  of  righteousness  on  the  right 
hand  and  on  the  left "  (2  Cor.  i.  12  ;  vi.  4-7). 


392  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

.  So  he  wrote  years  ago  to  the  captious  Corinthians  ;  and 
such  a  testimony,  both  from  within  and  from  without,  he 
desires  for  his  successors. 

Along  with  the  primary  responsibihty  for  character  in  the 
pastors  of  the  Church,  there  devolves  //le  charge  of  doctntir 
— not  indeed  committed  solely,  but  specially  and  by  way  of 
guardianship,  to  the  separated  ministry.  "  Faithful  men  " 
t  ley  must  be,  able  to  "  teach  others,"  to  whom  above  others 
the  things  "  heard,"  says  the  apostle,  "  from  me  amongst 
many  witnesses"  are  to  be  "committed"  (2  Tim.  ii.  2). 
There  is  then  an  apostolical  succession  ;  but  it  descends  to 
the  humblest  preacher,  duly  qualified  and  appointed  in  a 
loyal  Christian  community.  The  chain  of  the  succession 
lies  in  the  believing  transmission  of  the  doctrine. 

Besides  provision  for  public  teaching  (Gal.  vi.  6 ;  Rom. 
xii.  7),  there  were  administrative  and  disciplinary  offices  to 
be  performed  in  the  Christian  societies.  And  it  was  for 
these  purposes  that  local  ministers  were  first  required.  The 
relation  and,  adjustment  of  these  several  functions  to  each 
other  in  the  early  Church  is  a  question  of  extreme  difficulty. 
There  are  two  distinctions  which  must  be  carefully  borne 
in  mind — distinctions  complicated  with  each  other  in 
various  ways:  (i)  That  existing  between  the  official  and 
what  we  may  call  the  charismatic  ministry ;  i.e.,  between 
the  ministry  of  persons  formally  appointed  to  Church 
office,  and  that  exercised  in  virtue  of  some  extraordinary 
Divine  endowmerit  in  the  man,  but  not  such  as  of  itself 
qualified  him  to  bear  rule  in  the  Church  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  between  the  ministry  of  official  status  and  that  of 
personal  gift,  the  former  in  some  measure  implying  the 
latter,  but  the  latter  not  of  necessity  carrying  with  it  the 
former  (see  i  Cor.  xii.  4-1 1  ;  Rom.  xii.  3-8).  (2)  Another 
distinction,  of  the  greatest  practical  moment,  is  that  which 
separated  the  local  and  congregational  from  the  itinerant  or 
missionary  ministry.  To  the  former  of  these  classes  "  the 
bishops  and  deacons  "  of  Philippians  and  of  the  Pastorals 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES,  393 

belonged ;  to  the  latter  the  "  apostles  "  and  "  evangelists  " ; 
while  "  prophets  "  and  "  teachers  "  might  labour  in  a  single 
community  (Acts  xiii.  i),  or  might,  and  in  post-apostolic 
times  commonly  did,  extend  their  work  over  a  wide  area  (see 
the  Teaching;  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Shepherd  of  HermasV 
In  the  earliest  times,  public  teaching  in  the  Christian 
assemblies  was  free.  Each  member  of  the  Church  might 
speak,  provided  it  were  "  in  order  "  and  "  to  edification  " 
(see  I  Cor.  xiv.).  We  must  presume,  however,  that  even 
at  Corinth  there  were  *'  presidents  "  of  some  sort  to  deter- 
mine, in  harmony  with  the  sense  of  the  assembly,  what  was 
in  order  and  to  edification  (comp.  i  Thess.  v.  12  ;  Rom. 
xii.  8,  and  the  "presiding  elders"  of  i  Tim.  v.  17).  Only 
the  "  women  must  keep  silence  in  the  assemblies  "  (i  Cor. 
xiv.  34,  35).  When,  now,  it  is  said  in  i  Timothy  ii.  12, 
"  A  woman  I  do  not  permit  to  teach,"  we  presume  that 
the  right  of  teaching  was  still  reserved  for  all  other  com- 
petent Church  members  (comp.  ver.  8,  "  I  wish  the  men 
to  pray  in  every  place,"  obviously  relating  to  the  exercise 
of  public  prayer).  But  this  license  in  no  long  time  had 
come  to  be  abused.  Talkative  and  pretentious  men  found 
their  advantage  in  it.  The  Church  meetings  were  made  a 
theatre  of  "  discussions  and  logomachies,  out  of  which  env)' 
and  strife  arose,"  tending  to  "  questionings  "  rather  than  to 
promote  "  the  dispensation  of  God  which  is  in  faith  "  (i 
Tim.  i.  4  ;  vi.  3-5).  While  the  writer  does  not  for  this 
reason  forbid  the  established  liberty  of  preaching  and  pro- 
phesying,^  he  is  anxious  that  the  bishops  should  be  efficient 

'  The  teaching  office  of  the  bishop  is  most  emphasized  in  the  epistle 
to  Titus,  He  was  organizing  new  Churches  in  Crete,  where  no  pre- 
established  license  of  teaching  existed,  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  full 
authority  of  the  presbyter-bishops.  We  obser\e,  moreover,  that  there 
is  no  mention  of  deacons  here,  who  might  not  be  required  in  small 
Churches,  at  least  in  the  first  stage  of  Church  organization  (comp.  Acts 
xiv.  23).  Nor  is  it  prescril>ed  that  the  bishop  shall  not  l)e  a  "  neophyte," 
as  in  the  older  Church  of  Ephesus  (l  Tim.  iii.  6) ;  but  he  must  have 
"  believing  ciiildren  " — a  condition  necessary  to  mention  in  a  new 
community,  but  that  takes  a  different  and  stricter  form  in  the  directions 
addressed  to  Timothy  at  Ephesus  (I  Tim.  iii.  4,  5). 


394  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


in  this  respect,  competent  to  take  a  leading  part  in  public 
instruction  and  to  counteract  the  attempts  of  false  and 
foolish  teachers.  The  words  of  i  Timothy  v.  17  make  it 
tolerably  clear  that  while  teaching  was  not,  like  ruling,  an 
exclusive  nor  indispensable  attribute  of  the  official  elders, 
still  they  frequently  exercised  this  function,  and  the  writer 
wishes  to  encourage  them  in  doing  so. 

There  is  little  evidence  to  be  gleaned  from  other  sources 
as  to  the  connexion  between  ruling  and  teaching  in  the 
local  ministry  in  apostolic  times.  Hebrews  xiii.  7  indicates 
that,  amongst  Jewish  Christians  at  least  in  the  seventh 
decade,  the  two  offices  were  commonly  regarded  as  one. 
James  iii.  i  belongs  to  an  earlier  time,  when  things  were 
tending  in  that  direction.  In  the  Gentile  communities  the 
liberty  of  teaching  continued  to  a  much  later  epoch; 
indeed,  the  tradition  of  it  remains  in  the  Apostolic  Cojistitu- 
iions  (viii.  32),  which  in  their  present  form  are  referred  to 
the  third  or  fourth  century.  In  Ephesians  iv.  11,  however, 
"  the  pastors  and  teachers  "  form  a  single  group,  if  not 
identical  yet  closely  allied,  and  alike  distinguished  from  the 
several  orders  of  "  apostles,"  "  prophets,"  and  "  evangelists." 
It  is  just  this  tendency  to  unite  the  pastoral  and  teaching 
offices  to  which  the  Pastoral  epistles  give  expression. 

^^'^hen  we  turn  to  the  newly  discovered  Teaching  of  the 
Apostles,  our  most  important  witness  for  the  development 
of  Church  organization  in  the  post-apostolic  period,  we  find 
that  now  "  the  bishops  and  deacons  themselves  discharge 
the  ministry  of  prophets  and  teachers  "  (chap,  xv.),  while 
at  the  same  time  there  are  itinerant  "  prophets "  and 
"  teachers,"  who  possess  a  preponderant  influence,  and  may 
even  supersede  the  local  officers  in  the  conduct  of  the 
Eucharist  (chaps,  x.-xiii.).  The  .S'//^///r/v/ of  Hermas — dating 
from  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  as  the  Teaching 
probably  from  the  close  of  the  first — gives  evidence  to  the 
same  effect.  Now,  it  is  noticeable  that  our  epistles  make 
no  reference  to  these  roving  prophets  and  teachers,  whose 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  395 

ascendency  is  the  most  conspicuous  feature  in  the  picture 
of  Church  hfe  aiforded  by  the  Teaching.  Their  prominence 
belongs  to  the  transitional  period  between  the  personal  rule 
of  the  apostles  and  the  ofificial  rule  of  the  mon-episcopal 
hierarchy  established  in  the  second  century.  Instead  of 
the  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  forming,  as  Harnack  says,  "  a 
mean  term  between  i  Corinthians  xii.  and  the  Pastorals,"  the 
truth  is  that  the  Pastorals  and  Ephesians  together  are  the 
mean  term  between  i  Corinthians  xii.,  with  its  fluid  and  un- 
formed Church  life,  and  the  settled  and  formal  order  which 
the  Teaching  delineates. 

Since  Bishop  Lightfoot's  famous  Dissertation  on  the 
Christian  Ministry,  the  identity  of  "  bishop  "  and  "  elder  " 
in  the  New  Testament  may  be  regarded  as  an  established 
fact.*  The  presiding  congregational  officers  are  ciders  in 
respect  of  rank  and  "honour"  (r  Tim.  v.  17),  and  bishops 
in  respect  of  their  "  work  "  and  responsibility  (i  Tim.  iii.  i ; 
Tit.  i.  7  ;  Acts  xx.  28).  The  late  Dr.  Hatch  (whose  removal 
by  death  we  deeply  deplore,  in  common  with  all  Christian 
scholars)  attempted  in  his  Bampton  Lectures  to  show  that 
the  two  offices  were  of  distinct  and  independent  origin. 
He  argued  that  the  presbyterate  was  a  Jewish,  and  purely 
magisterial  and  disciplinary  order ;  while  the  episcopate  was 
Greek  in  its  derivation,  financial  and  administrative  in  the 
first  instance,  but  taking  on  in  the  Church  a  spiritual  and 
charismatic  character.  This  theory,  we  are  persuaded,  will 
not  be  sustained  on  mature  e.xamination.'-    According  to 


'  Some  able  scholars  maintain  that  elder  is  the  wider  term,  denoting 
Church  office  generally,  and  embracing  bishop  and  deacon  alike  ;  so 
Dr.  MiUigan  in  the  Expositor,  3rd  series,  vi.,  348  ff.  This  position 
cannot,  we  think,  be  sustained  in  face  of  Titus  i.  5,  7,  so  precisely 
identifying  "elders"  and  "the  bishop";  nor  does  it  accord  with 
I  Timothy  iv.  14,  v.  17, — texts  which  imply  a /;-«/VjV;///V7/ dignity, 
inappropriate  to  the  name  and  calling  of  the  "  deacons."  The  deacons 
would  more  naturally  come  in  the  first  instance  from  the  ranks  of  the 
voung  men.     "  Young  men  "  is  a  quasi-official  term  in  Acts  v.  6,  10. 

*  Kuhl  subjects  Dr.  Hatch's  theory  of  the  episcopate  to  a  searching 
criticism,  in  pp.   87  ff.  of  his  G(iHeindeordnung ;  and  Ciore's  recent 


396  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 

Hatch's  hypothesis,  it  was  only  gradually,  towards  the  end 
of  the  first  century,  that  the  two  systems  were  amalgamated 
and  presbyter  and  bishop  shared  the  same  functions,  until 
the  bishop  was  differentiated  from  the  presbytery  in  a  new 
way  under  the  mon-episcopal  regime  of  Ignatius.  If  Dr. 
Hatch  is  right,  then  the  Pastoral  and  Ephesian  epistles,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  epistle  of  James,  and  i  Peter 
must  all  be  relegated,  at  the  earliest,  to  the  closing  years  of 
the  first  century.  So  Harnack  ^  inferred  with  irresistible 
logic  from  Hatch's  premises  ;  and  while  Dr.  Hatch  did  not 
draw  these  conclusions  in  the  Bampton  Lectures,  his 
articles  on  Paul  and  Pastoral  Epistles  in  the  Encyclopcedia 
Britannica  (9th  ed.)  show  that  he  had  reached  the  same 
result  in  the  case  of  Ephesians  and  the  Pastorals,  and 
inclined  to  it  in  regard  to  the  Acts.  This  is  a  heavy  price 
to  pay  for  Dr.  Hatch's  attractive  theory.  So  far  as  any 
case  has  been  made  out  for  St.  Paul's  authorship  of  these 
letters,  it  negatives  the  supposition  that  the  presbyterate 
and  episcopate  were  fundamentally  different  offices. 

Very  significant  for  the  primitive  meaning  of  episcopus  is 
I  Peter  ii.  25,  where  Christ  Himself  is  called  "  the  shep- 
herd and  bishop  of  your  souls  " ;  and  with  the  "  bishop  "  of 
this  passage  the  "presbyters"  of  chap.  v.  1-4  are  linked 
as  those  who  "  shepherd  the  flock "  under  the  "  Chief 
Shepherd,"  just  as  in  Acts  xx.  17-28  "the  elders  of  the 
Church  "  at  Ephesus  are  exhorted  to  "  take  heed  to  the  flock 
over  which  the  Holy  Spirit  made  them  overseers  (bishops) " ; 

and  important  work  on  The  Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  while 
less  successful  in  its  constructive  argument,  makes  some  effective  criti- 
cisms on  the  Hatch- Harnack  liypothesis.  See  also  the  discussion  on 
the  Origin  of  the  Christian  Ministry  in  the  Expositor,  3rd  series,  vols, 
v.,  vi.  ;  especially  the  contributions  of  Drs.  Sanday  and  Salmon. 

'  In  his  notes  to  the  German  translation  of  Hatch's  Lectures 
(Z?/V  Gesellschaftsverfassnng,  etc.),  and  Analecten  zti  Hatch.  In  the 
Expositor,  3rd  series,  vol.  v.  pp.  334,  335,  Harnack  says,  "  I  regard 
the  Pastoral  Epistles  as  writings  which,  in  their  present  form,  were 
composed  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  ;  but  older  documents 
were  made  use  of  in  their  composition." 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  397 

similarly,  "  shepherds  "  is  the  designation  for  Church  rulers 
in  Ephesians  iv,  11.  The  same  conception  of  the  bishop's 
work  underlies  the  directions  of  the  Pastorals  ;  it  comes 
out  vividly  in  the  question  of  i  Timothy  iii.  5  :  "if  he 
knows  not  how  to  preside  over  his  own  house,  how  will  he 
care  for  the  Church  of  Cod  ?  "  (comp.  John  x.  13)— a  higher 
care,  surely,  than  that  of  the  Church's  money  chest !  These 
documents  bear  a  common  witness  to  the  moral  and  spiritual 
character  of  the  episcopal  calling,  and  through  it  a  mutual 
testimony  to  each  other.  They  unite  to  express  with 
fine  simplicity,  and  without  a  trace  of  second  century' 
ecclesiasticism,  the  apostolical  conception  of  the  Christian 
ministry — viz.,  that  of  spiritual  shepherding. 

Still  the  question  remains :  If  presbyter  and  bishop 
meant  the  same  thing,  why  tlie  tzco  names  ?  For  answer, 
we  are  left  to  conjecture.  We  venture  to  think  that  the 
title  bishop,  first  appearing  in  the  speech  and  from  the  pen 
of  St.  Paul,  is  due  to  the  apostle  himself,  original  as  he 
was  in  so  many  things.  Elder  preoccupied  the  field  in  a 
community  of  Jewish  origin,  and  came  into  use  as  a  matter 
of  course,  so  soon  as  a  board  of  managers  was  needed  in  the 
new  society  (Acts  xi.  30;  xiv.  23,  etc.).  But  this  designa- 
tion had  certain  obvious  defects.  It  was  ambiguous  (see 
1  Tim.  V.  I,  17  ;  i  Pet.  v.  i,  5),  and  unexpressive.  It  was, 
moreover,  in  constant  use  among  the  Jews  as  a  title  of  civil 
office — a  circumstance  liable  to  cause  confusion,  and  per- 
haps distaste  to  Gentile  Christians.  The  Old  Testament 
suggested  episcopits  '  to  those  casting  about  for  a  substitute ; 
and  this  term  commended  itself  by  the  fact  that  it  indicated 
the  peculiar  nature  of  the  office  (overseership),  and  was 
kindred  in  meaning  to  shepherd,  a  figure  hallowed  and 
endeared  by  the  lips  of  Christ  (John  x. ;  comp.  i  Pet.  ii.  25). 

'  See  Crcmer's  BiblUo-theological  Lexicon,  s.v.  'Erfffroroi :  and 
Lightfoot's  Kote  in  liis  Ccmmcntary  on  Philippians,  pji.  93  ff.,  also  his 
Dissertation  on  the  Christian  Ministry  in  the  same  vol.,  which  still 
remains  the  best  elucidation  of  the  subject. 


398  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


If  about  the  same  time,  in  the  older  Pauhne  Churches, 
assistant  officers  came  to  be  needed  in  the  shape  of  deacons, 
after  the  model  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  vi.),  it  would  be  still 
more  necessary  to  give  the  superior  functionaries  a  name 
implying  superintendence.  We  find,  in  fact,  that  "  bishop  " 
and  "  deacon  "  are  correlative.  It  is  possible  that  St.  Paul's 
address  at  Miletus,  reported  in  Acts  xx.,  marks  the  juncture 
at  which  the  new  appellation  was  making  its  appearance, 
and  that  the  remarkable  words  of  ver.  28  were  expressly 
chosen  in  order  to  recommend  its  use ;  when  he  writes  to 
the  Philippians  a  few  years  later  (chap.  i.  i),  it  is  an  accepted 
and  famihar  title.  The  "helps"  and  " governments "  of 
1  Corinthians  xii.  28  contain  in  the  abstract  the  antithesis 
of  "  deacon "  and  "  bishop,"  present  at  this  earlier  time 
in  the  apostle's  mind,  although  it  had  not  yet  at  Corinth 
crystallized  into  formal  expression.  But  whatever  be  the 
true  explanation  of  the  double  name,  it  is  surely  past  ques- 
tion that  in  the  Acts  and  epistles  elder  and  bishop  are 
synonymous. 

The  long  section  devoted  to  Church  widmvs^  in  i  Timothy 
V.  3-16,  is  interesting  on  many  grounds.  It  speaks  for  an 
early  date  for  the  epistle,  that  the  claims  of  dependent 
widows  had  not  hitherto  been  fully  discussed  and  settledi 
The  sixth  chapter  of  the  Acts,  accepted  on  all  hands  as  a 
genuine  picture  of  primitive  Church  life,  shows  that  the 
matter  from  the  first  received  much  attention.  Our  author 
is  anxious,  too,  that  the  influence  of  the  "aged  women" 
generally  should  be  utilized  in  the  guidance  of  their  sex 
(Tit.  ii.  3-5).  It  is  not  the  first  time  that  St.  Paul  has  shown 
his  sense  of  the  importance  attaching  to  the  position  of 
women  in  Christian  society  (i  Cor.  xi.  2-16) ;  and  the 
attempts  of  heretical  teachers  to  win  their  adherence  (2  Tim. 
iii.  6)  made  it  the  more  necessary  that  the  Church  should 
be  guarded  upon  this  side.  Holtzmann  curiously  argues 
(pp.  245,  246)  that  the  recommendation  of  i  Timothy  v.  r4, 
approving  the  re-marriage  of  "  younger  widows,"  came  fronj 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  399 


the  experience  of  "  a  later  generation  "* ;  and  he  is  surprised 
at  the  appearance,  within  the  lifetime  of  the  apostle  Paul,  of 
"widows  grown  grey  in  the  service  of  the  Church  "  1  (Irant 
ten  years'  existence  to  the  Ephesian  Church,  and  a  moderate 
knowledge  of  human  life  to  the  apostle,  and  these  critical 
difficulties  are  solved.  In  the  young  Cretan  Churches  the 
question  of  the  widows  has  not  yet  arisen. 

There  is,  no  doubt,  a  difference  between  the  Paul  of  i 
Corinthians  vii.  and  of  i  Timothy  in  the  tenor  of  their 
observations  on  marriage  and  "child-bearing."'  But  the 
advices  of  the  former  passage  were  based  on  prudential 
and  temporary  considerations  (vers.  28,  29).  Now  that  the 
Church  appears  likely  to  continue  on  earth  for  a  longer 
space,  family  life  resumes  its  natural  importance ;  and  the 
epistles  of  the  third  group  (Colossians  and  Ephesians)  give 
to  it  the  highest  ethical  and  religious  value. 

It  remains  finally,  and  in  distinction  from  the  local 
officership  of  the  Churches,  to  consider  the  ecclesiastical 
status  of  Tivwthy  and  Titus.  Since  the  failure  of  Baur's 
attempt  to  identify  the  bishop  of  the  Pastorals  with  the  mon- 
episcopus  ^  (or  monarchical  bishop)  of  the  second  century, 
his  successors  have  turned  the  functions  of  Timothy  and 
Titus  to  account  in  favour  of  the  Tendency  theory.  They 
seek  to  show  that  the  position  of  these  apostolic  commis- 
sioners is  magnified  in  the  interests  of  episcopal  autocracy. 

If  so,  the  supposed  episcopalian  forger  has  shown  himself 
both  timid  and  blundering  in  the  extreme;  and  the  partisans 
of  the  Ignatian  episcopate  can  have  had  little  to  thank  him 
for.  The  epistles  of  Ignatius,  unciuestionably,  make  use  of 
the  Pastorals,  but  in  no  instance,  so  far  as  we  can  find,  in  the 
sense  imputed  to  the  latter  by  the  Tubingen  school.  The 
"  tendency  "  of  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  had  not 
then  been  discovered  !    The  only  title  the  writer  ventures  to 


'  We  owe  this  convenient  term  to  Mr.  Gore's  Ministrj  of  the  CJin's- 
tian  Cimnh. 


400  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


give  to  either  of  the  delegates  is  that  of  "  evangeUst."'  They 
stand  in  no  fixed  relationship  to  the  local  Churches.  The 
powers  they  exercise  for  the  time  in  Ephesus  or  Crete, 
as  formerly  in  Corinth  or  Thessalonica,  are  the  powers  of 
the  living  apostle  exercised  through  them ;  and  are  of  an 
expressly  occasional  and  limited  character.  They  are  to 
choose  and  ordain  Church  officers  in  the  apostle's  absence, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  voice  of  the  Church  (im- 
plied throughout  i  Tim.  iii.  1-13) ;  and,  in  Timothy's  case, 
to  investigate  complaints  that  might  be  made  against 
"elders  "  already  in  office  (i  Tim,  v.  19-25  ;  also  Tit.  i.  6-9). 
And  this  is  all !  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  they  charged 
themselves  with  details  of  local  administration,  or  with  the 
discipline  of  lay  members  of  the  flock.  Paul  had  himself 
excommunicated  certain  persons  ( i  Tim.  i.  20) ;  Timothy 
and  Titus  are  bidden  merely  to  "avoid"  the  mischief-makers. 
In  this  unique  commission  there  is  more  that  differs  from 
than  resembles  the  functions  of  the  latter  monarchical 
bishop.  Holtzmann  says,  indeed,  that  Timothy  and  Titus, 
with  their  powers  of  visitation,  were  prototypes  of  the  arch- 
episcopate  (p.  266),  But  who  ever  thought  of  archbishops 
in  the  second  century  ? 

After  all,  their  relations  with  the  Ephesian  or  Cretan 
presbyteries  constituted  only  the  incidental  part  of  the  life- 
work  of  these  apostolic  men.  "  The  testimony  of  our 
Lord  "  was  laid  upon  Timothy,  through  God's  gift  of  grace 
solemnly  attested  and  committed  to  him  at  the  outset  of  his 
career  (2  Tim.  i.  6-14) ;  and  this  it  was  his  business  every- 
where to  proclaim.  It  is  his  to  "  do  the  work  of  an  evange- 
list," and  to  share  with  his  master  in  the  glorious  toils  and 
sufferings  of  a  missionary  preacher  (2  Tim.  i.  8  ;  ii.  1-T3). 
This  mission  required,  beyond  the  repetition  of  the  Gospel 
story  and  the  announcement  of  God's  message  of  peace  to 
mankind  (i  Tim.  ii.  3-7),  that  the  purpose  of  grace  should 
be  carried  out  to  its  practical  issues  in  the  moral  life  ot 
believers — "  the  things  which  become  the  sound  doctrine, 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.  401 


It  is  not  a  testimony  only,  but  a  charge  that  is  entrusted  to 
"  my  child  Timothy,"  that  he  may  "war  the  good  warfare,' 
holding  faith  and  a  good  conscience"  (i  Tim.  i.  3-1 1,  18, 
19  ;  Tit.  ii.  11,  12).  This  testimony  and  charge  are  of  uni- 
versal import  ;  they  belong  to  the  ministry  of  Christ's  servants 
and  soldiers  wherever  exercised.  And,  in  fact,  the  apostle 
dwells  with  greatest  emphasis  on  Timothy's  personal  voca- 
tion in  the  second  letter,  when  his  commission  at  Ephesus 
is  about  to  terminate,  and  he  is  in  the  act  of  summoning 
him  to  join  himself  at  Rome. 

It  is  no  question,  therefore,  01  ecclesiastical  system  or 
episcopal  claims  that  weighs  on  the  mind  of  the  writer  of 
these  memorable  letters.  His  supreme  concern  is  for  the 
maintenance  of  character  and  true  doctrine  in  the  Christian 
ministry,  and  through  it,  in  the  Church  it  serves.  All  that 
was  local  and  of  the  occasion  in  the  charge  of  the  departing 
apostle  to  his  children  merges  itself  in  that  which  belonged 
to  their  essential  calling,  as  bearers  of  the  message  of  the 
glory  of  the  blessed  God.  The  same  call,  conveyed  through 
diversities  of  operation,  is  given  to  every  true  minister  of 
Christ.  Whatever  human  hands  may  take  part  in  its 
bestowal,  it  is  God's  charism.  His  immediate  and  sovereign 
gift  of  grace.  It  is  manifest,  now  as  then,  in  the  spirit  of 
power  and  love  and  discipline.  To  all  who  bear  it  the  great 
herald  and  apostle  cries :  Preach  the  ivord.  Guard  the 
X'ood  deposit.  Suffer  hardship  with  me,  as  a  good  soldier  oj 
Christ  Jesus. 

Paul's  living  utterance  makes  itself  heard  in  these  severe 
and  lofty  tones,  not  that  of  some  actor  on  the  ecclesiastical 
stage  who  has  assumed  his  mask,  some  impostor  hidden 
under  the  dead  lion's  skin.  Words,  thoughts,  spirit  in  these 
letters  alike  speak  for  their  great  author — great  in  his  latest 
work,  wise  and  far-seeing  in  his  care  for  the  flock  of  Christ, 
skilful  to  fence  its  fold  against  the  approaching  wolves,  as 
he  had  been  mighty  in  word  and  doctrine  in  those  wondrous 

26 


402  THE  APOSTLE  PAUL. 


years  when  he  founded  Gentile  Christendom  and  built  up 
the  imperishable  fabric  of  the  New  Testament  theology. 
The  second  century  never  spoke  as  these  epistles  speak. 
By  their  voice  we  discover  the  apostle  still  alive,  when  all 
other  clear  record  of  him  has  perished  amid  the  confusion 
of  the  latter  years  of  Nero's  rule.  He  has  lived,  happily, 
to  send  to  the  Church  out  of  that  time  of  fear  and  dark- 
ness a  last  watchword,  —  his  message  of  farewell  to  the 
men  he  trusted  most,  and  to  us  all  through  them.  It  is 
a  word  full  of  hope,  and  full  of  solemn  warning, — a  message 
of  discipline,  of  courage,  and  of  unchanging  faith  in  Christ 

ni2T02  o  Aoros. 


Butler  iL  Tanner.  The  Selwood  Printing  Works,  Frgme,  and  London. 


<,^_. -- -  H.^,  .^^ 


M 


Ql» 


'^.   - 


3  1158  01053  3569 


A  000  168  494  3 


from  which  tt  was  borrowed. 


.^^ 


n 


ryn\  r' 


